Software Engineer Salary Question

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

I'd show any employee who used the "or else" line the door.

Where I work they have a huge site for training managers. They have "Senarios" of what an employee may do and what your correct response should be. The correct answer is to "let the employee go", huge amount of reasons why but the short answer is if a person is actively looking for a pay increase outside the company even offering a reasonable pay increase is not going to keep them long enough to justify that pay increase.

Although I can understand the eariler explanation of how to talk about this. For example, you can like your job and realise that you are not getting paid enough for what you need. In this instance you should have the skills to show that you deserve the pay increase but explain that you need more money and you can understand if they don't give it but tell them not to get upset if at that point you may need to start looking to ensure you have a reasonable income.

As for the person jumping jobs to get a pay increase. While it works in the short term you will be looked at later on as a person who isn't willing to commit to a company. This can adversely effect promotion, training, etc. Because after all why bother training someone who is just going to jump ship in a year or so time. Also there are many factors why people don't change jobs. As you get older you will find (certainly in the tech business) that jumping will be harder as you will be competing with grads who might not have the whole experience but would have enough in the area in relation to you (and are also generally expected to jump after 2-3 years). Unless at that stage you have gotten into management.

As for bosses being fair on pay increases. Milage varies. One of my first jobs many years ago the boss in question was a tyrant when it came to paying employees. Anything reasonable you ask for he would say your are asking two much and negotiate from 1/2 of what you asked. You generally has to start with some silly figure and work your way down.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Negotiation and ultimatums are entirely seperate things, and the latter should never be confused as a legitimate form of the former.

You’d be surprised how few know this.

Same logic for employees who find another job and look for a "counter-offer". My answer would always be "the counter-offer is that you turn them down and stay here in your current position with no change".

I agree, any negotiating tactic like that backs you both into a corner and sets you up for your bluff being called.

If you can't ask for the reasoning behind what you're offered...you need to change jobs. If you can't accept the reasoning once given...you need to change job. If, as an employer, you think that what you're willing to offer the employees is not open to discussion....expect to lose a lot of staff.

Unfortunately employers vary wildly in attitudes towards their employees, but ultimately all will try to get you and keep you at the lowest possible price. No if you do as you say and then take them at face value, this is called accepting the first offer because, more often than not, they can and will make a better offer.

Now, in a perfect World there would be no ‘first offer’ and we would get the best possible deal following a fair argument, but we don’t live in a perfect World and so we are forced to haggle.

As a result, I (with an employer's hat on) would "mark you down" for such subtle approaches, and "mark you up" for saying I'd have expected a bit more, but would like to hear your reasoning for the offered figure when the negotiationgs actually started.

The whole point of subtle approaches is that they are not identified as such. If done properly you would simply notice that the employee is not happy - and not necessarily because of pay. As any good manager, this would concern you. If you realize it was premeditated, then the stratagem failed.

It’s not entirely dishonest either as an employee is not going to do it unless he or she was unhappy in some way - this is simply one way of bringing it to managements attention on the employers terms. This means that the difference to that approach and being direct is that the employee is making no direct demands and so the manager must essentially make the first offer, thus setting the starting point for negotiations. Then you can whip out your salary survey.

Then again...I'm one of those strange people who believe that both staff and management deserve to be treated with fairly.

I agree and people can from time to time be altruistic a behave fairly, but you cannot get away from the fact that management and employees have different goals and this will to some degree or other always get in the way of people being ‘fair’.

JimmySmith

Hobbes wrote:

As for the person jumping jobs to get a pay increase. While it works in the short term you will be looked at later on as a person who isn't willing to commit to a company. This can adversely effect promotion, training, etc. Because after all why bother training someone who is just going to jump ship in a year or so time. Also there are many factors why people don't change jobs. As you get older you will find (certainly in the tech business) that jumping will be harder as you will be competing with grads who might not have the whole experience but would have enough in the area in relation to you (and are also generally expected to jump after 2-3 years). Unless at that stage you have gotten into management.

When you change jobs you dont have to worry about promotion etc. Promotion is a stick to beat the employee with. You will change jobs into management type jobs too as you get more experienced. Also, You should be training yourself all the time and not relying on your employer to provide it for you. After all they will train you for their business only. You should be adaptable.

I find moving job easier as i get older. I am more used to how the whole IT industry works now when i have changed jobs 3 times in about the last 6 years. You get know a lot more people and as they move around they are forever asking you if you want a job in their place as they are recruiting by word of mouth first.

Also it should be understood by everyone that a grad is absolutely no comparison to a person with experience. They are looking at 2 completely different markets.

Don't be afraid of mapping your career. If you have to move on to improve your career then do so.
If you feel you have to justify to people changeing jobs every year or so then become a contractor. Nobody at all seems to think a contractor is unstable because they change jobs very often do they.
Keep changeing every year or two until you get into a job you want to stay in and that treats you like you deserve.

Hobbes

JimmySmith wrote:

When you change jobs you dont have to worry about promotion etc. Promotion is a stick to beat the employee with.

However I doubt very much you say that at the interview time, unless they are hiring you knowing full well they aren't going to have someone on the project in a couple of years time.

Sure job hopping is fine but it will come a time when your history of continually moving from job to job acts against you.

HelterSkelter

I've been in the same company for 7 years since I graduated. Do you think this will look bad on my CV? It's not as if I have been working on the same job day in day out for 7 years, have been on different projects, learnt different languages, etc. Went from Junior Developer -> Developer -> Senior Analyst Developer.

JimmySmith

Hobbes wrote:

However I doubt very much you say that at the interview time, unless they are hiring you knowing full well they aren't going to have someone on the project in a couple of years time.

Sure job hopping is fine but it will come a time when your history of continually moving from job to job acts against you.

Well do you tell everything you're thinking at an interview. I bet you do alright
I'm good at my job and so far its never some back to haunt me. Why would it? Show me a person in IT who has stayed in a job for more than 2-3 years and i'll show you 10 that have moved every 2-3 years and i'll bet the 10 i show you are better off than the one you showed me. Simple fact is that companies value good workers and no company expects an employee to stay more than 2 -3 years in IT.
When i'm interviewing people i'm under no illusions that they are doing it for the money and to pay their mortgages, even if they start ranting about how much they've always wanted to work for the comapny and make it their lifes work. When i put a team together i put a team of skilled people, not loyal people together.

I'm not saying moving job every couple of years is for everyone. Neither am i saying that people who choose to stay are in any way doing the wrong thing.

HelterSkelter wrote:

I've been in the same company for 7 years since I graduated. Do you think this will look bad on my CV? It's not as if I have been working on the same job day in day out for 7 years, have been on different projects, learnt different languages, etc. Went from Junior Developer -> Developer -> Senior Analyst Developer.

Why would it look bad on your CV. What counts is your skillset and how you fit in with any potential company. You can tell from looking around you those who have kept up and those who havent. Would you consider your salary to be on a par with a new hire of the same experience. If so you;re on a good thing i think.

My original post here was that you will increase your salary faster when you move than waiting for your review and we've gone a bit off topic. All i really should have said was Look around, you dont have to move but look around to see whats going on. If you;re happy stay where you are. Its most important to be happy in your job than anything else.

TempestSabre

HelterSkelter wrote:

I've been in the same company for 7 years since I graduated. Do you think this will look bad on my CV? It's not as if I have been working on the same job day in day out for 7 years, have been on different projects, learnt different languages, etc. Went from Junior Developer -> Developer -> Senior Analyst Developer.

Its usually an advantage.

secret_squirrel

TempestSabre wrote:

Its usually an advantage.

Generally but it also depends on the reputation of your company. Im pretty sure my 6 years where I am is becoming a liability

On co-oincidental note, I have both a performance appraisal and an interview next week
Complete fluke honest, got a mail from an agency out of the blue last week

First interview in 18 months (not that I was actively looking) should be interesting!

As regards negotiating you have to change you approach to suit your manager. I know I could drop a few hints to mine, who is a personal friend and it will be subtly highlighted to senior mgt.

Whether anything would come of it is another matter.

Another important thing is not be obsessed about salary. Other things such as a good pension (such as a final salary scheme), or flex time could be worth far more than a few €k more in the pay packet. The fact that I can take 1/2 a day off a week if I have clocked up the hours has been the major factor in keeping me where I am.

bonkey

HelterSkelter wrote:

I've been in the same company for 7 years since I graduated. Do you think this will look bad on my CV? It's not as if I have been working on the same job day in day out for 7 years, have been on different projects, learnt different languages, etc. Went from Junior Developer -> Developer -> Senior Analyst Developer.

Reading this just reminded me of something...

Does anyone else find it odd that you can hold a senior position after such a relatively short amount of time?

I'm not knocking HS here...I was a Senior-something after a comparable amount of time too....but it just made me wonder...

If you start work in your mid-20s, you have 30-40 years of employment ahead of you. If you achieve a senior position within the first quarter or third of that (i.e. within 10 years) what does that leave for the remainder?

Its almost as though there's an implicit suggestion that development is a short-to-mid-term career : you'll top out early on, and need to move to Architecture / Analysis & Design / Project Management. There doesn't seem to be anywhere to go for the developer who simply wants to be a developer.

Or is there?

Hmmm....I can see it now...

You see an ancient multi-hued developer.
The ancient multi-hued developer breathes on you.
more...


jc

Zaph0d

bonkey wrote:

If you start work in your mid-20s, you have 30-40 years of employment ahead of you. If you achieve a senior position within the first quarter or third of that (i.e. within 10 years) what does that leave for the remainder?

Stagnation. You should be able to fit three full careers in 45 years working. Start again after 15 years and do something different. This time round you bring the experience from your first career. I've seen people do lawyer->tv producer, engineer->journalist, doctor->lawyer.

Why not?

PDelux

Does anyone else find it odd that you can hold a senior position after such a relatively short amount of time?

If you start work in your mid-20s, you have 30-40 years of employment ahead of you. If you achieve a senior position within the first quarter or third of that (i.e. within 10 years) what does that leave for the remainder?

Yea, i think it is odd. When I hear of it i think the company gave them the title to hold on to them.

But the problem with it is that when a company is hiring, they have a budget for the new team, say for 2xengineers, 1xsenior engineer, 1xprincple. If you were a senior engineer applying for this you would not be considered for the 2x engineering positions even if you wanted it. It limits your chances.

dazberry

secret_squirrel wrote:

Generally but it also depends on the reputation of your company.

Not the reputation per say - but I've seen third hand very small companies that have very fluid design and development rules (i.e. none) and have a very short code to revenue ratio (i.e. get it out the door asap).

Naturally it depends on the person, but working in these sort of companies is alright in the short term. But suddenly you find people who have done the same thing for 10 years, and its as if they have 10 times 1 years experience rather than 10 years experience.

I've met a few people that have fallen into that trap, and its two fold. Firstly they can find themselves being very well paid - not because they're good software engineers - its because they're key to a product, and secondly they don't have the skills to justify their salary outside the product.

I actually interviewed a guy last year who had worked in the same job for 8 years and fell into this trap. His skill set while encompassing some of what we wanted was far to narrow because it hubbed completely around the same product for 8 years.

D.

stevenmu

dazberry wrote:

Naturally it depends on the person, but working in these sort of companies is alright in the short term. But suddenly you find people who have done the same thing for 10 years, and its as if they have 10 times 1 years experience rather than 10 years experience.

That can happen alright. On the other hand in a small company you can end up doing everything in the product cycle, with a wide range of technologies to boot, gaining much more experience then you would in a bigger company/team.

dazberry

stevenmu wrote:

That can happen alright. On the other hand in a small company you can end up doing everything in the product cycle, with a wide range of technologies to boot, gaining much more experience then you would in a bigger company/team.

Indeedie, but there was a specific mould of small company I was thinking about there - beyond just being small!

D.

bpmurray

bonkey wrote:

Reading this just reminded me of something...

Its almost as though there's an implicit suggestion that development is a short-to-mid-term career : you'll top out early on, and need to move to Architecture / Analysis & Design / Project Management. There doesn't seem to be anywhere to go for the developer who simply wants to be a developer.

Or is there?

I think this used to be the situation. However, more & more companies are starting to value their developers, and provide a pure technical career path. That said, it's assumed that your dev experience will be put to more use, such as in contributing to the architecture and design of the product. If you've good dev experience, you also know what's efficient and have a good grasp of best practices, so you're expected to use these skills, and not simply be a coder.