Here is comparing google to microsoft to amazon in Seattle. The gaps are pretty wide even for college hire SDE salaries. Go demand a pay raise today!
http://www.salar.ly/salaries/?title=&company=amazon&location...
http://www.salar.ly/salaries/?title=&company=google&location...
http://www.salar.ly/salaries/?title=&company=microsoft&locat...
Site is down by they are looking at it: https://twitter.com/roguelynn/status/507231579752902656
I don't want to poison the working relationship with people above me.
There is a quote from hundreds of years ago which applies. "Make game of that which makes as much of thee." They fully intend to game you and exploit your desire for stability and predictability in your life. Play them back.
Raise an issue with them that you feel you're being underpaid. I've done this in 1-on-1 meetings with managers in the past. If they think you're worth keeping, they will do what they can to give you a raise when the time comes. But keep in mind that other people on their team maybe be underpaid more than you, so they might try to correct those people's salaries first.
At least from what I've seen, managers at some level (your direct manager, or their manager) are given some numbers of dollars to increase the salary of the employees. They have to choose how to distribute that between their people.
Depending on the company, it may take you moving to a different company to get what you're worth. Most companies know that transitioning jobs is difficult and a lot of people won't go through the effort. Because of this they will underpay people that they don't think are going to leave. If you want to try, apply around, interview, and get a job offer at another company. Present it to your manager and see what they say. Some companies will counter-offer, while others have policies where they will not counter-offer.
Story: a friend was offered a contracting position with the same company he already worked for (from the contracting firm, the company didn't know yet), that would be paying far more than he was making. He didn't take it and his manager didn't do anything to correct his salary. But it was pretty funny to see.
If they treat you poorly then no one from your network will ever work for them. And if you take the story to the Internets then it gets even worse. Trust me, the company has more to lose than you do if the relationship sours.
Even though you have most of the leverage, approach your manager with respect and graciousness. Thank them and talk about how much you enjoy working here. Then tell them your pay is compressed and ask for a raise. You can google this part. Some approaches suggest being straightforward and others say build a list of your accomplishments.
Most companies even have your comp-a ratio on file, they already know you are underpaid.
If they say yes then congratulations.
If they say no (I can't make this decision. I need the VP's approval. We don't have the budget. blah blah) then work on finding a new job. Which sounds daunting but really isn't that bad.
Anyway good luck!
EDIT: Shitty story time. I have had managers say "What we can do to change your mind?" I love that...but the last time I asked for a raise my boss gave me a lecture on how there are more important things in life. People who make over 250k a year are not allowed to tell me money is not important. What a jackass.
At the meeting, bring up how well the company is doing and how well you are doing. Ask for a raise.
You don't need to say where you got your number, or complain that you were underpaid before. Go in knowing your market salary -- which they probably know anyway.
EDIT This isn't a surefire plan; as the sibling comment says, sometimes you have to leave to get paid your market.
But basically they are more worried about poisoning relationships with you than the other way around. If you leave for a higher paying job and your peers find out...that's much worse for the company.
Look at this (Salaries in New Jersey? $45,000 for systems analysts?) http://www.h1bme.com/?employer=COGNIZANT+TECHNOLOGY+SOLUTION...
Systems Architects $73k and "programmers" $63k. Not a single software engineer or developer! http://www.h1bme.com/?employer=TATA+CONSULTANCY+SERVICES+LIM...
To answer your question below, you can get the H1B data through http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm -> disclosure -> LCA.
http://visadoor.com/perm (Daily PERM results)
http://visadoor.com/h1bvisa-database (H1B )
http://visadoor.com/greencards-database (PERM, more detailed info)
Indeed!
They are fixing it!
(site is also down so I can't see)
You should consider how much risk you are willing to take and how likely it is that you will get a smaller (or larger) than expected bonus.
At Apple, one VP of SW has a salary of approx $400K.
Having seen H1B document submitted to the DoL, I know that firms misrepresent these numbers. An H1B is granted to immigrants for positions that ostensibly couldn't be filled by US citizens, this is rarely the case. Firms have to show that a job application was life for a certain amount of time and they were unable to fill it.
Finally they need to claim that because the position is so hard to fill, they are willing to pay above prevailing wage. See H1B LCA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Labor_Condition_Appli...
They however do not need to prove that the claimed wage is what is actually being paid. These numbers are thus overestimates and I would guess >10% off the mark.
That said, it is obviously illegal to misrepresent these numbers and some firms are more scrupulous than others.
I, like the other replies here, had the exact salary which my H1B Visa application represented to the DoL. It is illegal to misrepresent this, so in order for the prevailing wage to be misrepresented by 10%, the vast majority of H1B Visas would need to be illegally submitted.
Edit: The application also includes a representative sample (or exact numbers of the last few employees) of others who were hired into a similar position. This includes non-H1B employees.
Can you explain?
Sure the large tech employers are going to have better salary databases than an individual, but that doesn't mean there's no point in trying to arm yourself with relevant info.
I also know foreign co-workers who always report their current pay when job hunting because they have looked themselves up on similar sites.
We sponsored H1B applicants in the past, and the numbers were reviewed by the lawyer who took care of the application. We also had to post the opening notice internally, with the salary offered. And finally, as others have stated, the number is known by the sponsored employee, so there's really no incentive to inflate that number.
In fairness, blue chip US tech companies don't do that.
There's simply no incentive for any party involved to misrepresent the figure. Why would companies, foreign employees or lawyers ever change the number when they have nothing to gain but expose themselves to incredible risk by doing so?
"Well, the company is doing well, but since the economy sucks and unemployment is at 8% the company feels like we should be fortunate to have jobs and thus doesn't feel like they will lose anyone over salary."
It should be noted that, from 2006 until I finally got out in 2012 I saw two people leave for outside opportunities, out of a program that had over 300 people. More people retired than quit. Maybe management just had them that well pegged.
Not saying that is right or wrong, just know that doing this multiple times at the same company is often frowned upon.
Also, don't do it without being ready to make the switch--you never know when your company will call your bluff and say "ok, enjoy your new job, your last day is today."
I'd also like to present the flip side, which is what it is like to be on the receiving end of such a request. I had an employee I managed in a past job come to me with a reasonable raise/promotion request. Myself and my boss did everything we could to give it to him as he definitely deserved it in spades. We were blocked by the finance and HR departments. They did not want to do things "out of cycle" which isn't exactly fair to the employee if they started significantly outside the beginning of that cycle.
Ultimately I lost them to a competitor, and felt absolutely awful about it (even though this was in an industry where turnover is incredibly high and 1 year stints are very common). The worst part was that it was totally out of my control and I did everything I could to make it happen and failed.
When I had a similar situation in the future with someone else I managed, I flat out told them I would do my absolute best to fight for them (and they knew I meant it), but said that if the company wouldn't give them what they deserved, I would not hold it against them in the least for switching since they need to do what's best for them regardless of the headaches it would cause the team. They ultimately left for more money and the company lost another valuable employee because they couldn't part with a couple grand per year which was a pittance compared to the value this person added.
Long story short, it sucks just as bad to be on the receiving end of this, but a lot of times the direct manager may not actually be empowered to make the budget decision necessary to offer a raise. In those cases, please do your best not to hold it against them if they can't win that fight.
If you are friendly with any managers, it's good to find out the company's policy on competing offers. (I had a friend who was a manager in a different department, so I could find out company and HR policy on this kind of thing). Competing -offers is definitely something you only want to do if you are seriously about switching companies.
Different side story: My last job I was working out of a satellite office that was closed down as the company slimmed down to be bought out. We have around 50 people in the office. There was a 2nd and 3rd line manager that were cut when it all went down, so we were able to talk a bit more openly with them about it after the fact.
These managers were newer to the company and stunned at how low the salaries were for most of the individual contributors. They were doing the best they could to get salaries up-to-snuff, but when they were only given 3% (of the salaries of all their employees) to use to give raises, it was really hard to get people properly compensated.
Most lower-tier managers really do care for their employees, they just tend to be limited by corporate direction and what HR tells them they can and can't do.
That heavily depends on your region. In places like the EU you cannot be fired on the spot for something like that.
An example of this. My wife's employer recently found out she had applied for a job at another company. They fired her that day. She didn't get the other position and the previous employer is blocking unemployment compensation.
If you don't have the funds that's one thing and I get it, but seems like spikes are exactly the kind of thing worth spending on.
In any case, there are other constraints than just the amount of webservers that could be causing the outage e.g. the database.
That being said, you can be fired for things that you're legally allowed to discuss, and then it becomes an issue of whether you're willing to pay lawyer's fees to sue. Which is not usually a great situation to be in.
Using the pathological case to prove your point rather than a more likely case is disingenuous at best.
I'm talking about people trying to make an honest living, and having to deal with nests of vipers while trying get reasonably compensated.
If market is 104k, don't offer me 52k salary + 52k bonus, because I have to say I make 52, not 104 - well below market.
To me it sounds like a way to artificially deflate salaries (not specifically compensation. Your SO might want to know how much you expect to make all year, but for budgeting purposes, there's a big difference in budgeting for a 1k per week cash flow and a 2k per week cash flow.
When you are comparing your current compensation package to the industry standard the better one is the one that is worth more to you. You might put an unusually high or low value on risk or the cost of delaying compensation till the end of the year. You might value the free lunches or health insurance more or less than the average worker. Since you are the one receiving the compensation package what matters is what it is worth to you.
The bottom line is that market rate is total compensation, not just salary. If a company offers you a 'market rate' salary with no bonus and no benefits then that offer is bellow market rate. If an offer has lower salary, but great benefits and a huge bonus then (if you will actually get the bonus) that offer is above market rate.
In my case, a bonus is extra pay, usually tied to performance (individual or corporate), while yours appears to be 'another category of compensation for work done.'
Companies may withhold a higher percentage than a standard paycheck, but this is generally because they treat the bonus as if you will continue to receive that income throughout the entire year, and withhold at the corresponding higher rate. When taxes are filed you will receive a refund for any taxes overpaid.
As a manager, I value my long-tenured employees _very_ highly and work hard to ensure they get significant raises year after year. I learned to do that by working as an engineer at several other companies that did the same.
So, if your employer doesn't work to make their best, most experienced engineers feel valued and well-compensated, by all means look for another job. But don't assume that all companies will try to force you out as soon as your salary is higher than a new grad's.
Training new people is expensive. Why would any sane company deliberately encourage turnover?
Requiring people to have a competitive offer in-hand basically says, "if you want a raise, go interview somewhere else." That's toxic and only effective for the people who game the system.
Responsible employers owe their employees a fair (according to market, their peers, and their contributions) wage, not the minimum they can possibly get away with paying. It might save you a few bucks in the near term to play stupid games with people's comp, but the attrition will kill you in the long run.
I agree with you on this. However, that's just how it works at all of the places I have worked for. Except for one. The startup I was at before we were acquired by a large tech company. However, being a startup we were already strapped for cash and were not being paid market rates but had some equity. That turned out to be decent when we cashed in but not enough for most of us to cover the salary difference.
I fully agree that employers should be proactive to ensure that good employees are happy and want to stay with the company. It should be mutually beneficial but I have yet to find a place like that. In the mega corps this just can't happen because of red tape. If you don't ask you will just get the standard 2% or whatever it is each year. Many times if you do ask the manager can't do anything about it anyway. I've brought it up that my hourly rate is 1/8 the rate I bill out at and am told that's just how it works.
I've used this tactic twice with the same employer. It's just business and any professional manager will not foster resentment. If it does cause resentment then you can solve it by simply leaving. I have no concerns over "looking weak". I'm only in this for me. It's bad enough that I trade my precious time for money. I'm going to take as much as the market will offer me. It probably sounds selfish but that's how it is. I work only to provide a decent life for my family. If I had 5 million today I would not continue to do what I do. I would find something to occupy that time but it wouldn't be trading hours for dollars.
What do you expect people to do? Work for the same company for 30 years and be happy to get maybe a 2% raise year over year?
My company offers market rate adjustments (outside of the usual review/salary adjustment periods) to retain experienced developers.
Being "extra" does not make it somehow not compensation.
Money is fungible.
So your explanation doesn't really answer the question.