Rant about pay

[RangerPooh]

Another thing that's a fairly recent development is the hyper-focus that HR departments have taken towards pay equity. They're much less likely to make individual wage adjustments than they used to be, even for top performers. They want as little as possible left up to management discretion and instead are more likely to just pay everyone benchmark rates for a given title.

This! A year or two ago my employer analyzed job classifications, realigning some. This meant that there were individuals who received an increase in pay while others (like myself) remained stagnate. Where the unfairness of this comes in is the education and experience level that I need to have in my position vs a department admin who has now been realigned into my job category. Completely different jobs, mine in a teaching/guidance role, the other front desk. Yet we now get paid almost the same. It makes no sense and leaves me feeling underappreciated.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Those people were also being paid several $ above what our state min wage is/was.

This is what your comment was.

So our state recently changed the pay scale for state employees so that the minimum was $15/hr for the bottom of the payscale.

When I refer to minimum wage that's what I mean (your second statement). These people were making less and less just because the employer had a minimum rate and only paid them that rate. Now that rate is being increased. That isn't the same as an employer saying we're taking across the board wage increase because in that case they still would have had a minimum wage set at what it was. Your employer (the state) has opted to only raise the minimum.

I am not complaining that the lowest got a pay raise at all.

Well yes you are. You're complaining because you didn't get one just because they did. But honestly because you mentioned exactly how the gap is even if you got a raise but it wasn't much I think you might have still complained because it would still be "other employees not only make $X less than".

If there are going to be increased job duties, more complex work, then the harder job makes more than the job that is less responsibility. Otherwise, why would you take on more work and more headache?

Honestly that's not what your discussion was about. Most of us don't disagree with the concept that work=pay at least rudimentary. This however isn't that some people got a raise when they put in the effort and you didn't when you felt you did put in the effort and should be paid more. So either it's that you've put in the effort and deserve the additional pay or you're just hyperfocused on staying $X many dollars in pay above others below you and it sounds more like the latter here.

But I never said that those wages shouldn't be increased for these jobs.

In your past discussions no you haven't. However, instead of this being about you and your position and wanting more pay (like your past discussions were about) for the work you do you've focused on these other employees who now make only $0.41 less than you.

In reading your argument you seem to think that all job classes should be paid the same regardless of responsibility or duties.

Interesting but no that's not how I feel.

The framework for your conversation was others got a raise strictly because the minimum was raised. I don't have any issues with that.

It wasn't due to seeing you as expendable so they gave raises only to certain staff but not you. If they had I would have an issue with that. I do believe a Canadian poster months ago mentioned that's what was standard in their industry in order to prevent certain positions from jumping ship and I remember commenting that seems unfair. However practical that may be it didn't seem fair.

It also wasn't a raise based on performance and hard work. Had it been you felt like you're putting in all the hard work you can I would have suggested to go request a raise (like had been suggested in the past or leave which also had been suggested). It wasn't a COL increase such that everyone should get it. This was just aimed at increasing what the minimum amount they will pay. Had you been that employee who was at that minimum you would not be complaining (logically here) about a person above you only making $0.41 more than you.

 

[Sinder]

The problem with that is taxpayers pick up the slack when wages get too low for someone to live on. It's not fair to expect tax payers to subsidize wages while a company rakes in profits off the labor.

You are absolutely right it is unfair for taxpayers to have to pick up the slack for the people who think they are entitled to the company they work for paying for their standard of living. That’s totally on them, and the problem is they don’t see it that way. There are alot of things that make one not be able to afford to live on their salary and they all are the responsibility of the employee not the employer to fix.
It doesn’t matter though, we all know what is going to happen, those people will always remain at the bottom if they continue to expect someone else to lift them up. You can continue to demand a company raise pay for minimum wage unskilled workers so they can live on it, but they will eventually have to raise all the people with more skill, experience and education too. That is inevitable. And those minimum wage earners will be right back where they started and people will be arguing all these same things again in 20 years.

 

[Orion Nebula]

There are alot of things that make one not be able to afford to live on their salary and they all are the responsibility of the employee not the employer to fix.

those people will always remain at the bottom if they continue to expect someone else to lift them up.

Are you talking about the people struggling to survive off minimum wage? Or the people who make above it and having issues supporting themselves?

 

[dez1978]

This is what your comment was.


When I refer to minimum wage that's what I mean (your second statement). These people were making less and less just because the employer had a minimum rate and only paid them that rate. Now that rate is being increased. That isn't the same as an employer saying we're taking across the board wage increase because in that case they still would have had a minimum wage set at what it was. Your employer (the state) has opted to only raise the minimum.
Well yes you are. You're complaining because you didn't get one just because they did. But honestly because you mentioned exactly how the gap is even if you got a raise but it wasn't much I think you might have still complained because it would still be "other employees not only make $X less than".
Honestly that's not what your discussion was about. Most of us don't disagree with the concept that work=pay at least rudimentary. This however isn't that some people got a raise when they put in the effort and you didn't when you felt you did put in the effort and should be paid more. So either it's that you've put in the effort and deserve the additional pay or you're just hyperfocused on staying $X many dollars in pay above others below you and it sounds more like the latter here.
In your past discussions no you haven't. However, instead of this being about you and your position and wanting more pay (like your past discussions were about) for the work you do you've focused on these other employees who now make only $0.41 less than you.
Interesting but no that's not how I feel.

The framework for your conversation was others got a raise strictly because the minimum was raised. I don't have any issues with that.

It wasn't due to seeing you as expendable so they gave raises only to certain staff but not you. If they had I would have an issue with that. I do believe a Canadian poster months ago mentioned that's what was standard in their industry in order to prevent certain positions from jumping ship and I remember commenting that seems unfair. However practical that may be it didn't seem fair.

It also wasn't a raise based on performance and hard work. Had it been you felt like you're putting in all the hard work you can I would have suggested to go request a raise (like had been suggested in the past or leave which also had been suggested). It wasn't a COL increase such that everyone should get it. This was just aimed at increasing what the minimum amount they will pay. Had you been that employee who was at that minimum you would not be complaining (logically here) about a person above you only making $0.41 more than you.

See you are reading into this far more than what it actually is. And mostly you seem to be the only one doing that. And do I deserve more for the work I do, heck yes. So do all of us here. And I'm sorry, I just don't see how any one cannot see the complaint here. If you have worked hard, which I have, and put the time in, which I also have, and have the experience and the added duties and responsibilities, which I also have, then yes, you deserve the same raise everyone else got. Sure the bottom deserved to go up. But the others should have gone up at least CLOSE to the same % that everyone else did, and I feel that those above me, the social workers, Direct care staff, etc, should have also gotten that 28% that the bottom did. Bc it's not fair for those who have a masters degree to only make a little more than those with no education at all. You keep going back to merit raises and pay increases for doing a job well. Those don't exist here. Literally, there are no state raises given individually for hard work. You get a raise if you get a promotion or if everyone gets one. I can go to the top here and ask for a raise all I want. I'll get told "you deserve it, but I can't give it to you" These types of raises are the only ones that exist. So yeah, when you can't get more for working harder or being the best at your job, then you get mad when the pay gap you earned for taking more responsibility and taking more work on get taken away. If that makes me an awful person, then I guess I'm a bad person. You act like I'm for keeping the bottom guy down and that isn't at all what I've said here.

 

[tvguy]

At least here, a lot of the advantage of public sector jobs is TOTAL compensation. Pay + Benefits. There is a website here called Transparent California and every public sector workers's salary and benefits are listed there. My neighbor just retired as a High School teacher and looked herself up and was shocked to see that the benefits she got were valued at $55,000 a year.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

And mostly you seem to be the only one doing that.

Because I remember the past conversations for context likely why.

You act like I'm for keeping the bottom guy down and that isn't at all what I've said here.

Because you've made it a point to mention:

So lots of job classes got over$3/hr raise. I already made $2.50/hr more than they did because my job class is a higher pay scale. However, now, I only make .41 more than the bottom of the payscale. So 21 years experience, education, in a job doing complex clerical skills (idk how else to word that lol) etc and I only get paid .41 more per hour now than someone who starts tomorrow with no experience, not even a ged required, preportioning already cooked food.

But man.... .41/hr for a whole lot more responsibility and headache surely doesn't seem worth it today.

I'm not saying they don't deserve that raise,

You don't sound like this a "hey I work hard, they work hard how come they got a raise I didn't" You sound more bitter (without being vitriol about it) that these people get more money (and now make just ever so slightly less than you) without having to do anything for it. But the reason they got more money to me matters it does not appear to matter to you though. I would be on your side more at least if it was for the other reasons I listed in my comment but this was just them increasing the minimum and because they did that the employees who were at that minimum got a bump in pay to match it. You've mentioned exactly how much they make as in the difference between you and them and making a point to talk about the no experience, education, etc part whilst also making it a point to mention several times that you're not saying they don't deserve the raise. Your other words say otherwise.

ETA: I think you just got a raise too (or at least in Jan you said that).

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

You are absolutely right it is unfair for taxpayers to have to pick up the slack for the people who think they are entitled to the company they work for paying for their standard of living. That’s totally on them, and the problem is they don’t see it that way. There are alot of things that make one not be able to afford to live on their salary and they all are the responsibility of the employee not the employer to fix.

…we are talking about people struggling to pay for food and shelter. They don’t really have many options to “fix” it if their choices are a bunch of $8/hour jobs.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

In hospitals now, thanks to the pandemic, travel nurses are coming in and making lots more than regular staff are making, and generally they aren’t as proficient and don’t have the same responsibilities as regular staff do (like being in charge, overseeing new staff, training others, taking sicker patients or those with specialized technology, seeing the bigger picture, dealing with problems on units, etc.). It’s been a source of frustration (to add to the list).

I was reading something recently that also talked about people who’ve been out there working throughout the whole pandemic really getting kind of the short end of the stick, with “new hires” getting incentives and the like. I thought it was an interesting point.

I did have a question, dez. Hasn’t it been a thing that people take state (municipal, federal, etc.) jobs because, in the end, they will benefit from retirement pay? I know that’s different than what you’re talking about, but I haven’t seen it mentioned here yet. I know a lot of people who put up with lower pay because they want the retirement.

 

[dez1978]

In hospitals now, thanks to the pandemic, travel nurses are coming in and making lots more than regular staff are making, and generally they aren’t as proficient and don’t have the same responsibilities as regular staff do (like being in charge, overseeing new staff, training others, taking sicker patients or those with specialized technology, seeing the bigger picture, dealing with problems on units, etc.). It’s been a source of frustration (to add to the list).

I was reading something recently that also talked about people who’ve been out there working throughout the whole pandemic really getting kind of the short end of the stick, with “new hires” getting incentives and the like. I thought it was an interesting point.

I did have a question, dez. Hasn’t it been a thing that people take state (municipal, federal, etc.) jobs because, in the end, they will benefit from retirement pay? I know that’s different than what you’re talking about, but I haven’t seen it mentioned here yet. I know a lot of people who put up with lower pay because they want the retirement.

We do get retirement pay. If I retire when I am eligible I'll get about 68% of my current take home pay. Most of the "older" workers here (and by older I mean 40s ) stay because the insurance is or was, better than anywhere else. And we've been here long enough to have maxed out on vacation time earned and such and just don't want to start over. I was just up front tho and heard several other ppl having this same conversation tho about if it's still worth it to stay. As long as you are vested you still get your retirement at a certain age. The amt just depends on your years of service and top pay.

As far as travel nurses vs regular staff, we've had to hire outside travel/contract nurses here too and our regular nurses are mad bc of how much more they are making and how much less they are doing. Same goes for direct care staff. The PRN rate is about $10/hr more than the regular staff rate. We've had several staff who have quit and just work PRN about 30/hrs a week making more than they were full time and get to set their schedule instead of being forced OT.

ETA: I think you just got a raise too (or at least in Jan you said that).

Ah yes. that whole 2%. Our insurance went up tho so it ended up being negative.

 

[nw6675]

I support a minimum wage increase. But I support proportional increases across the board at all pay levels. What you are saying hasn't been true in my experience. I've worked at 7+ corporations, most of them Fortune 100 or above, and it is quite common for new hires to come in below but VERY close to what more tenured employees are making.

Just going on record to say Prinseca rocks....carry on...

 

[kymom99]

State pensions are being stripped in my state too. So less and less are willing to work for the wages offered.

 

[Orion Nebula]

…we are talking about people struggling to pay for food and shelter. They don’t really have many options to “fix” it if their choices are a bunch of $8/hour jobs.

I was really hoping they didn't mean that by what they said. If so the person is completely disconnected from reality and it's depressing. And due to cost of living, inflation, etc even with the minimum wage increases a lot of people are still struggling to put food on their tables. It blows my mind when people point and say "well it's their fault" like everyone has the same opportunities in life. And somehow the people struggling "decided" to.... well struggle. And the entire "we gotta take up the slack" mindset... ya we do. It's our responsibility as kind and empathetic people to help others in need. And to make things worse some like to "victim blame", which is just kicking people when they are already down.

It's really sad.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Ah yes. that whole 2%. Our insurance went up tho so it ended up being negative.

Ah yes..but you did just get one. It's often that raises get eaten up by something or rather. That's been the case for a long time. Sometimes people just get a really good one that overcomes that. I used to complain that a raise sounded great but was eaten up by taxes and it usually was, stupid stupid taxes. But a raise would still be a raise and in this case you were wanting another raise because you saw others get one too.

I'm not saying you're not going to be alone in feeling jipped but you don't seem like the issue is your hard work should be compensated by a raise and you're just not getting one.

If it was more about your personal hard work it would only be about feeling like that 2.2% raise wasn't enough to compensate for all the hard work you've done. But you've made it about others getting a raise by not having to do anything (well other than being paid the prior minimum which should at least in some way be empathized with) and their lack of education and complex skills. I'm not saying you're a bad person either for thinking that, it's not unheard of to feel bitter about others getting something you feel owed (and I'm not being anything other than blunt about that but I'm not saying it's outlandish for you to feel that way) but it's not quite the same conversation as dang it my hard work isn't being recognized. Your hard work may not be getting recognized but the others below you are not responsible for that.

 

[seven dwarfs]

I am so confused. If minimum wage goes up, should everyone's wages? It's it's a 2.50 uptake, shouldn't that be everyone? Bringing up minimum wages and not bringing up other wages creates a huge issue. I'm seeing it where I live? People are walking off of jobs that are hard and underpaid, and literally going to Walmart and pulling groceries. I think this is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Saying I think the min wage should be raised to help people survive, but also my wage should also be raised? What's wrong with that?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I am so confused. If minimum wage goes up, should everyone's wages? It's it's a 2.50 uptake, shouldn't that be everyone? Bringing up minimum wages and not bringing up other wages creates a huge issue. I'm seeing it where I live? People are walking off of jobs that are hard and underpaid, and literally going to Walmart and pulling groceries. I think this is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Saying I think the min wage should be raised to help people survive, but also my wage should also be raised? What's wrong with that?

It's like an employer saying "our base salary is $10/hour" (arbitrary number selected) but they've raised their base salary to $11/hour.

There are 2 ways to go about that:
1) Grandfather in people which in this case means only new hires get the new base salary because the existing employees are held to the prior policy. That means existing employees who were only getting paid $10/hour stay at that.
2) Raise effective whatever date new hires and those presently getting paid the base salary

The OP's employer did #2.

When I worked at the insurance company (corporate) I worked with people who were making more than I was because they were hired for more than I was because that was the starting salary at that time although there was a complex salary grade system tied to college degrees that was removed just prior to me being hired. I've worked in retail where I made more than people who were hired 6 months after me because the base salary was less at that time. Neither situation was an across the board increase, it was only ever about minimum starting salary.

 

[GreatLakes]

When we change a pay scale here everyone in it gets readjusted so that doesn't happen. It could be a straight shift or a readjustment against the mean but we wouldn't allow that to happen. It is a morale destroyer.

 

[seven dwarfs]

It's like an employer saying "our base salary is $10/hour" (arbitrary number selected) but they've raised their base salary to $11/hour.

There are 2 ways to go about that:
1) Grandfather in people which in this case means only new hires get the new base salary because the existing employees are held to the prior policy. That means existing employees who were only getting paid $10/hour stay at that.
2) Raise effective whatever date new hires and those presently getting paid the base salary

The OP's employer did #2.

When I worked at the insurance company (corporate) I worked with people who were making more than I was because they were hired for more than I was because that was the starting salary at that time although there was a complex salary grade system tied to college degrees that was removed just prior to me being hired. I've worked in retail where I made more than people who were hired 6 months after me because the base salary was less at that time. Neither situation was an across the board increase, it was only ever about minimum starting salary.

But people are not going to continue to work, at a less pay with years experience compared to new hires at a higher pay. I mean come on? If someone brand new with zero experience is making more then someone with 10 years experience? Why would anyone stay in that situation. And to me, that is the point of this entire post. Minimum wage IS going up; right or wrong. But with that, do existing salaries also go up as well? People are not going to stay in a job where a new hire with zero experience makes more. Which then takes us to this entire employee reset. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

But with that, do existing salaries also go up as well?

It depends on what is actually going on.

To break it down:

1) Base salary increase (this is what the OP's employer did)
2) Across the board increases irrespective of one's position, work ethic and so on
3) Work/performance related increases

In realistic terms it would be pretty hard for any company to sustain long term if they did all 3 every time all the time. Sometimes you're going to have #1 occur and only that or just only #3 (which is actually quite common to only do it's why people complain about inflation and COL). Sometimes it's a combo of #1 and #2. Most though not all companies do #3 but things can happen that prevent that. It happened to my husband one year a few years after the Recession, with construction projects largely halted no one got raises that year that ordinarily they would get.

For the OP IIRC it wasn't common for the state employees to get raises outside of election/political stuff. So #3 did not seem like a common occurrence however they were recently given a raise.

But people are not going to continue to work,

Some do some don't. The OP has been complaining about pay for a while but also saying that their area doesn't need much money to live off of because the COL is low. That doesn't mean anyone wouldn't want to get higher pay, cuz that's pretty normal to want that. There has been quite a shift in the battle of the employee/employer, however not every person stays or leaves a company due to pay so it's a bit hard to say people are not going to continue to work because some def. will for one reason or other (which is their personal business).

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

We do get retirement pay. If I retire when I am eligible I'll get about 68% of my current take home pay. Most of the "older" workers here (and by older I mean 40s ) stay because the insurance is or was, better than anywhere else. And we've been here long enough to have maxed out on vacation time earned and such and just don't want to start over. I was just up front tho and heard several other ppl having this same conversation tho about if it's still worth it to stay. As long as you are vested you still get your retirement at a certain age. The amt just depends on your years of service and top pay.

Fwiw that is likely negotiable and the likelihood has increased due to worker shortages. I have never taken a decrease in vacation time switching employers.

Ah yes..but you did just get one. It's often that raises get eaten up by something or rather. That's been the case for a long time. Sometimes people just get a really good one that overcomes that. I used to complain that a raise sounded great but was eaten up by taxes and it usually was, stupid stupid taxes. But a raise would still be a raise and in this case you were wanting another raise because you saw others get one too.

I'm not saying you're not going to be alone in feeling jipped but you don't seem like the issue is your hard work should be compensated by a raise and you're just not getting one.

If it was more about your personal hard work it would only be about feeling like that 2.2% raise wasn't enough to compensate for all the hard work you've done. But you've made it about others getting a raise by not having to do anything (well other than being paid the prior minimum which should at least in some way be empathized with) and their lack of education and complex skills. I'm not saying you're a bad person either for thinking that, it's not unheard of to feel bitter about others getting something you feel owed (and I'm not being anything other than blunt about that but I'm not saying it's outlandish for you to feel that way) but it's not quite the same conversation as dang it my hard work isn't being recognized. Your hard work may not be getting recognized but the others below you are not responsible for that.

Sorry to be that person but 2.2% isn't a raise, it's a cost of living adjustment. If you have years of 2-3% pay increases you likely will not be making much more than the new hires.

But people are not going to continue to work, at a less pay with years experience compared to new hires at a higher pay. I mean come on? If someone brand new with zero experience is making more then someone with 10 years experience? Why would anyone stay in that situation. And to me, that is the point of this entire post. Minimum wage IS going up; right or wrong. But with that, do existing salaries also go up as well? People are not going to stay in a job where a new hire with zero experience makes more. Which then takes us to this entire employee reset. Very interesting indeed.

Most employers expect employees to keep their wages confidential so these discussions don't happen. This is, of course, to benefit the employer's bottom line.

To be honest though, if you are making close to starting salaries after 10 years in a company you are either highly undervalued, in a organization with zero upward movement, or have not developed yourself. First 2 should have had the person hitting the exit as soon as they could find something better and the third is a personal issue.