I'm having this exact issue with my current employer and my past two as well. I was and am being significantly underpaid compared to my coworkers because of my age and experience despite bringing the same level of technical skill and often taking on the larger workload (not speculative; also have 3 dependents). With the exception of the first, I have not been miserable, but without exception, all 3 have been unwilling to go to bat for my wages and would rather lose me, even while professing that that course of action would be a value loss.

Maybe I'm delusional about my skill and work ethic but I have found that issues of wages are never easily resolved and it's easier to just increase your wages by switching jobs. One startup of ~20 employees and two large companies.

Salary is a very touchy issue and there's several things to consider. One, that its a negotiation and you have to be very careful in your communications and diligent about protecting your own interests.

As an employee you're at a built-in disadvantage. Management knows everyone's salaries, you don't. Salaries are a closely guarded secret and they maintain that informational advantage against you. So, you really have to look at industry averages for your role and decide if you are not being appropriately compd.

Now, about mgmt valuing you and not letting you go. First, NEVER threaten to leave. They may preempt that and cut you, or you'll go on a list of troublemakers. Managers have lists of people in their heads they would like to cut if given the opportunity. It's the people that get cut whenever there is a layoff, when teams have to be downsized.

It's important to understand mgmt's perspective. They have dozens of people in slots to get things done. No one person is indispensable, especially at the staff level where most programmers are. A slot goes open, they fill it. I've worked with managers with the biggest hearts, good guys, not mean spirited or unappreciative of their employees at all. They will not necessarily blink twice when an employee says they'll walk.

I would say, if you have a good case you're under compd, or unhappy. NICELY go to mgmt. If they won't do anything, get an offer from another company. Then you have the choice to just leave, or go back to your company and you have leverage and then its going to essentially be an ultimatum to keep you. But be very nice and polite about it.

Going back with an offer is a huge mistake. They may renegotiate now but now you are a defector and will look to rid themselves of you as soon as possible.

That's the conventional wisdom but I disagree. If you're good (in their eyes, not yours) they'll want to retain you

> As an employee you're at a built-in disadvantage. Management knows everyone's salaries, you don't. Salaries are a closely guarded secret and they maintain that informational advantage against you. So, you really have to look at industry averages for your role and decide if you are not being appropriately compd.

Not sure about other places but everywhere I've been, this is simply official policy but in reality, employees talk. While it's not always exact, I can pretty accurately say who gets paid what with a fairly slim margin of error. Keeping salaries a secret seems more for the benefit of the company who may or may not be unfairly compensating their employees for not-so-good reasons (not saying there isn't other benefits). That bit has without a doubt been key in determining, since salaries can greatly vary between companies, regions, etc.

> Now, about mgmt valuing you and not letting you go. First, NEVER threaten to leave.

Agreed, and this is certainly not a tactic in my arsenal because I generally like where I work and respect my managers. I have gone outside to get offers and came back with that as leverage in case things didn't work out, and that's how I ended up where I am today. That seems to be the best option since you never quite know what is going on in management's head once they know you're unhappy.

Honestly I think in the case of the larger companies, managers have their hands tied by upper management or HR and aren't really willing to put their skin on the line, something I can't really blame them for for obvious reasons.

I've worked for 4 major companies and none of them could change anything that concerned me (mostly pay and interesting work). My suggestion is not to expect much, there is just too many constraints in large companies for things to change. I think the one I'm working for now I'll be the last. Curiously, I've bothered to discuss and escalate as much as I could stand and, without getting into too much details, I was told perhaps in 1 year I should see some change. Life's just too short and we're selling our time too cheap.

I've been exposed to many big co. IT depts and there's a conflict inherent in the situation I believe.

You're there to fill a slot (do one specific job) - even more likely in big co than in small co. but the smarter someone is - the more difficult to keep them motivated. So the smarter/better employee is more likely to be unhappy.

I think this is where having non-technical people managing technical people is a mistake. The technical manager is going to empathize much better with their staff and help them stay interested during those periods when a smart person becomes bored with their job. There's ways to do it. Special projects for instance, but it depends on the person. That's where there's no cookie-cutter answer and the manager actually has to make some effort and do their job.

If you're good, just start lining up a new gig and leave. Easiest way to increase your salary is to get a new job. This is what I used to do even if I was happy wherever I was working.

That's absolutely true. Giving a person who has proved his/her value the 15% pay raise they want or something similar is so much cheaper than letting them go, hiring someone new, training them, and hoping they will work out.

Unfortunately, in many larger companies (with hundreds of employees), there are so many layers of managerial bullshit that prevent that. People who actually know the employee who wants to leave (direct managers) often don't have power to decide the salary etc, and people who have that power are at the other end of company and they are not concerned about the productivity, etc., just making spreadsheets green.

I know a large company, where pay raises are almost non existent, and it's normal for employees to leave in 6-12 months. Needless to say, the productivity there is pretty bad.

but statistics shows that this person will likely leave anyway, the 15% provides only very short term relief from the real reasons why someone wanted to leave in the first place.

if I see someone in this position who works for me, I immediately start looking for their replacement.

Alternatively, you could try to address the things that make them want to leave instead of writing them off as misanthropes?

Once my living expenses went up and a 15% raise would've absolutely kept me with the company if I'd been given it when I asked, because it was the difference between making ends meet and not. I left the company because I had no other choice when I found a higher paying position.

In every other position, it's been cultural. If you can't make your employees happy with money, maybe you should think about your management style, your communication with said employees, and the culture as a whole.

That's a solid point. I agree with you when it comes to small pay raises - usually the pay is not the problem, if the person is leaving for extra 15% or so.

>>> very short term relief from the real reasons

Unless the real reason is that the employee believes that he is being strongly underpaid. I'd define strongly underpaid as a situation, when an employee is certain that he could get (or already got) multiple job offers with 20%+ higher compensation.

Because at the end of the day, vast majority of people work to earn money. Some employers try to make you feel that you are changing the world and what not, trying to say that it's not all about money, but well, it largely is about money. Some jobs are enjoyable where compensation is not extremely important (meaning that an employee would leave only for a significantly better deal), but I'd say that it's a rather rear case.

At the end of the day, it's a free market. We all have a price tag :)

Doesn't work in most cases. My wife, after a lot of encouragement from me, tried what you suggested. She told the current employer that she had not gotten a decent raise for the past 4 years. Her peers had gotten much better raises because they showed job-offers from other employers. She was getting a lot of calls from other potential employers too, but she didn't want to play the ransom game (I have this offer, now match it!). The employer told her that they can't offer her a good raise till she does exactly that -- bring an offer from outside. The problem is that when she does bring an offer and they try to match it, she'll not be interested in the match because she'd have made up her mind to leave.

This policy seems to attract and keep the wrong kind of employees -- those you're willing to play the ransom game from time to time.

IMO, you guys are putting too much stock into worrying what people might think of you. It is just that, a game, and only those who are willing to play can come out the winners. _Wages are your livelihood_ and if the only way to get a fair increase is to go outside and come back then so be it. I don't think people would look down on you for doing so if you were legitimately not being paid fairly.

You are right. I'm glad she finally tried to have a conversation about it. In a way, that conversation helps one come back to the right mind-set about the employer-employee relationship. Staying in a company for more than 3-5 years may be one of the best ways to get underpaid.

If someone threatens to leave for more money, then they've already made up their mind and they're not invested anymore.

Does that make those people the "wrong kind of employees"? Why? Business is business and employers have no business paying their employees unfairly. Sure, if you're paid fairly then that's a different story, but I'm not going to invest myself in a business that is potentially ripping me off.

I think assuming that someone isn't invested is a faulty assumption. If I had made up my mind, I wouldn't give you a chance at all. I would just take the offer and put in my notice. At the very least, someone who goes back and gives their employer a chance to meet an offer is doing things respectably and at most has some value in their current employer, enough so to give them a chance.

You make a good point, but what I was aiming at was that people shouldn't have to threaten to leave to get a pay rise, it should be a discussion. Threatening is a hostile move, not a negotiation tactic.

The first part of your response sounds agreeable - I suppose it's not the "more money" aspect as much as the "threat" aspect which shows that for one reason or another the relations between the company and the individual have gone beyond amicable negotiations into ultimatum territory and the employee is not very savvy - 9.9 times out of 10 the company has far much leverage in these sorts of negotiations.

But the rationale sounds a bit weird to me:

"they're not invested anymore."

How could an employee be invested in a company if they've not actually invested? This sounds like an employee should have some sort of weird feudal allegiance for the corporation they work for.

Exactly! But the "bring offers from outside to get real raises " policy tries to keep exactly those kind of not-invested employees and forces invested employees to quit because they won't get good raises without looking outside.

Ok but self defeating policies are the problem of the employer, she isn't responsible for fixing their company. Perhaps even more reason to get outz

That's why the employer should pay market rates so there's no reason for the employee to switch jobs to get a raise.

Why? I have seen multiple people being ready to leave, getting raise and then staying few more years.

I generally agree with your advice, but what I've seen at a lot of companies is that HR will put in policies that really tie managers hands. I know one place I worked at was notorious for underpaying people, and HR was stingy about how large of a raise someone could get, but if you brought in an offer letter they'd almost always match it. Which IMO is a very dumb policy -- basically the only people that got paid well were the people that already had one foot out the door.

I'm curious to hear your advice on the following: At once point I was hired by a bigCo, had been working at a university as a research sysadmin. They made a mistake, and thought that because they hired me _at_ a university I was a college hire, apparently ignoring the years of industry experience on the resume, and placed me at the lowest salary level. After 6 months, this mistake came to light, and after agreeing with my manager that the position was basically insulting given the background, I was told simply "well we can't do anything about it until the next promotion cycle, and even then we can't really 'catch you up'". This still stings in terms of time that I've now entirely lost pushing my career upwards. I decided to stay and wait it out rather than fight the decision or leave, I'm just curious about whether that would have been your decision in the situation.

(this turned out a bit long and ranty; my takeaway is just, I've run into too many situations where telling my employer I was unhappy/underpaid resulted in basically a "nothing we can do", and my switching to a higher paying base job)

I'm not the OP you initially posed your question to. But if you ask me, they just gave you the runaround. With what I would currently consider an insulting excuse. There is always a way, no matter how silly the "rule" if you could even find it written anywhere. Any manager, or moderately-motivated HR person would immediately find a way around it. If not, you don't really want to work there.

I was in a slightly similar situation at some point a long time ago. Did a 3-month "internship" as part of my degree at a real business. It was a token salary at that point, and I was fine even when the 3-month internship was extended for another three months. After that three months, I got a 10% raise, and when I questioned it I was given a cheesy response by a just-below-ceo-level person of "10% is a huge raise" as if ignoring the base salary that the 10% was adding onto.

Being a fairly shy, non-confrontational person I agreed. 6 months later when the year was over, and it came time to further renew the "contract", I told them I'm not signing diddly. That's when the story changed and they tripled the salary to a very good entry-level point. Two things: One, I made my point clear that they knew they would be losing a very productive and useful member of their team. And two, I spoke to someone a little lower down the hierarchy that ended up vouching and making my case to the "higher ups".

Your manager was wrong to not fight to correct this for you.

Even if his/her hands were tied higher up, I would have considered leaving on this basis alone: it shows nobody at the company is willing to look after your interests.

However, you must have agreed your salary at some point?

As illustrated in the article, the start of the job is the most opportune time to negotiate. Once you have started on a low salary, employer can safely assume you don't need a high salary and has little reason to pay you more. (You confirmed that this was the correct decision for them by deciding to wait it out)

My conclusion is that you'll now likely always be behind on your salary for as long as you stay with this company.

To his credit, my manager was extremely forthright in fighting for me, but his hands were tied in being limited to the typical periods.

Yes, I did agree to the salary, but as that I was coming from an academic position (and was honestly/still am relatively new to shopping around for jobs) the salary seemed like a vast improvement and I didn't think to dig deep into actual level.

Thanks (to other child posters as well) for your thoughts.

(to answer some side posts as well; I didn't mean to come across as having excessively many years experience, but that I was just not a college hire and hope I didn't mislead. This introspection also doesn't preclude looking for other options simultaneously, and I've certainly learned my lesson about asking more of some sorts of questions during my offer.)

One option to consider is to interview around and get a few firm, written job offers with companies you'd want to work at and with compensation you know to be fair. With those in hand, go to your employer and hand them your resignation "effective immediately". You can then say you're now available to be hired at an appropriate compensation level (and with firm offers in hand, they can't easily low-ball you) without having to wait for some arbitrary cycle. If they're unwilling then your fallback is the several better jobs you've already lined up.

Why aren't you looking for a new job? And if you had years of industry experience, why did you take the low salary? I feel like this is more a reflection on your passiveness rather than the bigCo. If you want more money and a better job it's up to you to go get it, you can't wait for your paymasters to pat you on the head and throw you a bone.

I agree. If you honestly believe you're underpaid compared to market value of your skills, and you're otherwise happy in your current position, it's a good idea to politely say that to your manager (in private of course).

I'm in management, and if one of my employees came to me and said that, I would definitely hear him out and do whatever I could to make it right. Even if I didn't feel he deserved a raise at that time, I would tell him what I felt he needed to work on in order to earn one.

But if someone came to me with another offer in hand, I would be extremely unlikely to make a counter offer. At that point it is just too late.

And on the other hand, if you are unhappy with where you work or the people you work with, and generally hate your job, but are seeking more money as consolation for your complaints, you're probably better off just going out and finding a new job, because more money alone won't fix your unhappiness for very long.

>>> But if someone came to me with another offer in hand, I would be extremely unlikely to make a counter offer. At that point it is just too late.

Exactly. I don't understand asking for a counter offer at all. Even if you get one, you will be tagged as someone who's looking to leave and chances are, you will be replaced pretty soon.

Probably the only exception would be if you have some skills and knowledge which makes you very hard and expensive to replace, and both you and the employer know it.

I've worked at a small startup for over a year and am a self taught developer. If I asked for more money and got it, I think I'd still be a little dismayed.

All I wanted was to have someone above me, an engineering manager or CTO, to help me fill the gaps in my education, but have been largely out on my own working on mission critical projects. While I have learned a ton from my mistakes, I have taken the brunt of all of them, many which I feel a superior could have spotted and steered me away from.

Agree somewhat, but in large companies there is so much politics going on that it makes sense to just quit and move to a more sane place. I work 60 hour weeks on average at one of the world's largest software companies on a paycheck that shows 38 hours official. It pays much better than my home country but if you try to raise your voice that you're not happy, HR will show you the door. If you're on a H1B visa, you really don't want that outcome.

So the sane option is to keep your mouth shut and code. Code like your life depends on it.

Appreciate that you have the freedom to move jobs, not everyone has the luxury.