Pay rise

fretted

fretted

fretted

Associate
Joined
4 Jan 2010
Posts
603
Ive just been told that i got a 3% payrise versus the 1% meted out to my colleague. Should i be happy? Or feel that i could get a more substantial rise by moving on?

Im not normally materialistic but i have worked very hard this year and not sure that the situation will get better in the following years.

Its about a 2k raise in real terms.
 
doesn't matter too much if business is poor for that particular business but rather whether the OP could get more by moving within that current industry at the moment

obviously there are factors other than money at play too such as career prospects/progression and simply whether you really like working with your current team or on the current project etc.. are you being challenged, learning useful/interesting stuff etc..etc..

but the general answer to the OP's question of whether he could get a bigger rise by moving is quite often: yes
 
Jesus. I would bite someones hand off for a 2k rise. Guess I'm on only a fraction of what you guys are.

I'm on the last day of my notice and moving on to another job which equates to a 10% rise for me (2.5k) and an extra 6 days holiday.

If you're enjoying the job and company, why move?
 
The easiest way to get a big payrise is to find a new job. It's rare to get a big rise at one employer, although I did manage to swing a ~30% increase once.
 
Thanks for the responses guys.

I like my job but there is definitely a limit to a progressive career path, hence getting a good raise sweetens the bitter pill of limited promotion opportunities.

The problem i see is that with Brexit looming, my company will use that as an excuse to keep salaries down for the next couple of years.

I work for one of the big four and we all made about 10% growth this year, so the sector doesnt appear to be struggling at the moment.
 
I remember an old CEO of mine citing the financial crisis as a reason for cutting costs... which was annoying as we'd actually made more money as a result of it.
 
A company could find out that they own a forest full of money trees that they hadn't previously accounted for and the news regarding raises would still be "hmm, we aren't sure how sustainable this money forest is so it's 2% this year".
 
Caged said:
A company could find out that they own a forest full of money trees that they hadn't previously accounted for and the news regarding raises would still be "hmm, we aren't sure how sustainable this money forest is so it's 2% this year".
Click to expand...

well to be fair unless the employees had contributed towards those money trees their presence/discovery isn't a reason to share the money among the employees
 
It was more a point about economic fortunes being given as a reason to not award pay rises, regardless of which way they go. I'm not saying that companies should just hand over all their profits, but constantly seeking to find an outside reason for a raise not being larger is ducking responsibility somewhat.
 
The fastest way I've ever gotten significant pay rises is to hand my notice in (with another offer of course). You're then in the good (but often difficult) position of being able to choose between a good package for staying and a good package for leaving.

Internal payrises and promotions can and do happen, but it's all fundamentally based on to what extent they think you could do better elsewhere.
 
Caged said:
A company could find out that they own a forest full of money trees that they hadn't previously accounted for and the news regarding raises would still be "hmm, we aren't sure how sustainable this money forest is so it's 2% this year".
Click to expand...
If money from the money trees can be picked easily by minimum-pay workers, why should they pay more than that?
 
Move on - no one ends up making good money by staying at the same company.
 
dowie said:
well to be fair unless the employees had contributed towards those money trees their presence/discovery isn't a reason to share the money among the employees
Click to expand...

Depends if your idea of good business is to provide value for shareholders or employees.

If you're a worker owned co-operative like John Lewis or Suma Foods, then you absolutely would share those money trees amongst the employees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
but in those instances they're being compensated partly because they're also owners

you might as well point out that workers who are also shareholders could benefit
 
dowie said:
but in those instances they're being compensated partly because they're also owners

you might as well point out that workers who are also shareholders could benefit
Click to expand...

So you're statement was factually incorrect. Understood.

Personally, I think all employees should be shareholders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom