Ask HN: No raises/promotions until next year. Is this a red flag?
22 comments
It’s pretty simple, really. There is “wink wink nod nod” collusion going on across the industry to suppress wages right now. They know that if everybody else is suppressing wages right now, they can without too much “trouble” as well.
Their calculus is just “how low can we keep wages without too much attrition”. Knowing that they have the backdrop of what feels like “always imminent recession”, it gives them a lot more confidence in holding wages down. Similar to how some (but by no means all) inflation was caused by companies knowing that since other companies were raising prices, they could also raise prices because consumers were already primed to think it was inflations fault and necessary.
Their calculus is just “how low can we keep wages without too much attrition”. Knowing that they have the backdrop of what feels like “always imminent recession”, it gives them a lot more confidence in holding wages down. Similar to how some (but by no means all) inflation was caused by companies knowing that since other companies were raising prices, they could also raise prices because consumers were already primed to think it was inflations fault and necessary.
I would be cautious but not overly concerned. The research consistently shows that layoffs are a negative for the company and should be a last-ditch effort to save the company, but it is likely a sign of a downward spiral. But being profitable already means that the company is at an important crossroads. It either grows and raises resume or it falters.
Is this your company's effort to avoid layoffs? If so I might appreciate that they have thought for themselves and are being proactive to avoid layoffs. This could be a sign of good leadership.
And I prefer to keep my colleagues instead of earning a couple more bucks, but that's just me. (Besides, it would likely me more work for me, too!)
For you, you'll have to decide if the company's future is worth it for your pocket book. You may indeed find more pay somewhere else. When a pay cut and freeze happened to me during the pandemic, the payoff was indeed worth it later because the leadership looked out for us. This isn't especially common though.
Is this your company's effort to avoid layoffs? If so I might appreciate that they have thought for themselves and are being proactive to avoid layoffs. This could be a sign of good leadership.
And I prefer to keep my colleagues instead of earning a couple more bucks, but that's just me. (Besides, it would likely me more work for me, too!)
For you, you'll have to decide if the company's future is worth it for your pocket book. You may indeed find more pay somewhere else. When a pay cut and freeze happened to me during the pandemic, the payoff was indeed worth it later because the leadership looked out for us. This isn't especially common though.
Those are all great points. Leadership could be looking out for us (attempting to avoid layoffs).
I would prefer to keep my colleagues as well. I’m not ready to jump ship quite yet. I could get paid more at another company, but I’m not sure it’s worth it at this time.
I still don’t quite understand why they would spend so much money on a retreat. Maybe it costs less than I think, compared to raises.
I would prefer to keep my colleagues as well. I’m not ready to jump ship quite yet. I could get paid more at another company, but I’m not sure it’s worth it at this time.
I still don’t quite understand why they would spend so much money on a retreat. Maybe it costs less than I think, compared to raises.
Let's say you go 2 years without a raise and year 3 is different, you finally get a raise.. It certainly will not make up for the other 2 years you didn't get a raise, it will 5%-7% max which doesn't even cover inflation. If you enjoy the work and the numbers for you that may be worth it, but if not I would look to move on.
Would the company give you a raise to afford a bigger house? No, that's a you problem.
Should you take an inflation adjusted pay cut to help the company improve their share price and delay your career growth by up to a year? No, that's a company problem.
Likely if the negative impact of these measures are seen as a net positive (attrition is 'acceptable' and stock goes up), they'll see that these measures are beneficial and continue them.
Your pay is based on the market, when measures like this are introduced, it's a good time to survey the market for your true worth.
Should you take an inflation adjusted pay cut to help the company improve their share price and delay your career growth by up to a year? No, that's a company problem.
Likely if the negative impact of these measures are seen as a net positive (attrition is 'acceptable' and stock goes up), they'll see that these measures are beneficial and continue them.
Your pay is based on the market, when measures like this are introduced, it's a good time to survey the market for your true worth.
It's simple: The people in charge only care about satisfying investors or having fun at a retreat.
Why are you overthinking it? If you're not getting paid enough, then you should look elsewhere. Get an offer, take it to your boss and tell them to match it or you're leaving.
There is no sense stressing about factors you can't control. And you're at a _public company_, not a startup, where this kind of worrying would be far more relevant. You have comparatively very little to worry about, but if you are worried, then you should find your next lily pad and get ready to jump to it.
There is no sense stressing about factors you can't control. And you're at a _public company_, not a startup, where this kind of worrying would be far more relevant. You have comparatively very little to worry about, but if you are worried, then you should find your next lily pad and get ready to jump to it.
How big is the company?
Did management also forego raises alongside devs?
Whether or not the company is behaving rationally is the wrong question to ask I think, all you can change is how you manage yourself.
Did management also forego raises alongside devs?
Whether or not the company is behaving rationally is the wrong question to ask I think, all you can change is how you manage yourself.
About 1500 employees.
I think it applies to everyone, including management. I haven’t seen or heard anything to suggest otherwise.
> all you can change is how you manage yourself
Good point
I think it applies to everyone, including management. I haven’t seen or heard anything to suggest otherwise.
> all you can change is how you manage yourself
Good point
One old adage I live by when it comes to people I work for... "Fuck you, pay me."
There's an implied contract at play, companies exist to make money and I work for them to get paid (what I'm worth). If either of these proves false, either party is free to terminate the implied contract at any time. It sounds like they're reneging on their end to pay you what you're worth, so I'd start looking for new work buddy!
There's an implied contract at play, companies exist to make money and I work for them to get paid (what I'm worth). If either of these proves false, either party is free to terminate the implied contract at any time. It sounds like they're reneging on their end to pay you what you're worth, so I'd start looking for new work buddy!
How do you establish how much _you_ are worth?
Whatever you're happy with making. I'm probably underpaid compared to others with my experience and skillset but IBM pays me enough to keep me happy and I am happy. So my paycheck is what I am worth in my mind. Sure I could be jealous of what some FAANG person makes but I can't let that guide my life. I have a great work/life balance and I get paid enough to make me happy.
The closer you are to the money, the more you make. Here, the leadership (esp those who report to CEO, and the underlings of these EVPs) get paid more even in the bad times: remember, retention bonus. The farther you are to the money, the less you make, the more excuses you get from your management. Their logic is: better remove raises/promotions for 1300 people, as it adds up in savings.
I don't know, I've been very close to the money a couple of times in my albeit short career so far (on the subscription/sign up team/on a team where we know exactly how much money we make to the dollar every month and we've demonstrated growth). Its made very little difference when it comes to promotions/raises.
Its always dangled in front of you. The new leveling system which promises clarity for how to move up is always 'on its way' and 'nearly complete'.
Your manager will say you're always close to moving up and getting a bump (which usually turns out to be a single digit percent).
At the end of the day either your manager is able to get results for you and you're happy or they're not and the only way to get more is to get a better offer somewhere else. It sucks but that's the way it is.
I don't believe 'better performance' (TM) will get you a better raise. If you doubled the number of tickets you complete in a sprint consistently you would not get a raise any more than what you'd get if you kept at your current pace. Its not like finance where your compensation is directly tied to your performance when you run a fund.
Its always dangled in front of you. The new leveling system which promises clarity for how to move up is always 'on its way' and 'nearly complete'.
Your manager will say you're always close to moving up and getting a bump (which usually turns out to be a single digit percent).
At the end of the day either your manager is able to get results for you and you're happy or they're not and the only way to get more is to get a better offer somewhere else. It sucks but that's the way it is.
I don't believe 'better performance' (TM) will get you a better raise. If you doubled the number of tickets you complete in a sprint consistently you would not get a raise any more than what you'd get if you kept at your current pace. Its not like finance where your compensation is directly tied to your performance when you run a fund.
market is still choppy, so i don't think it's an outright red flag about the org.
whether you are being underpaid at the moment probably depends on your specific skills.
the market is, at the end of the day, a market, and it's up to you to negotiate what you get paid, and to try and make sure that the amount is adequate to your worth.
other than that, I wouldn't take it too personally
whether you are being underpaid at the moment probably depends on your specific skills.
the market is, at the end of the day, a market, and it's up to you to negotiate what you get paid, and to try and make sure that the amount is adequate to your worth.
other than that, I wouldn't take it too personally
I think it is an example of a larger industry wide trend. My company is in a similar mode of trying to be lean as possible. New contracts seem to be getting stalled. We recently had an unexpected round of layoffs. Profitability is fine, but there seems to be an expectation of a slowdown.
> How should I interpret this situation?
Have you considered sharing your specific concerns with your manager? If not, why? Seems like they should be the most knowledgeable with regards to the rationale behind the decision.
Have you considered sharing your specific concerns with your manager? If not, why? Seems like they should be the most knowledgeable with regards to the rationale behind the decision.
Great point. I’ve talked briefly with my manager, but I’m going to have a longer meeting later this week. My impression is that they weren’t expecting this, and that they’re still gathering more details.
They got away with it last time, so they tried it again ... because more money for them if it works.
If you put up with it this time, you are telling them they can do it again next promotion cycle.
Shop around ... NOW!
If you put up with it this time, you are telling them they can do it again next promotion cycle.
Shop around ... NOW!
If you feel like you’re being paid what you’re worth, then no red flag. But if you feel like you’re getting underpaid, why not shop around for other jobs?
For the past 12 months, leadership has been pushing exceptionally hard to become profitable. To accomplish this, they've been reducing unnecessary expenses as much as possible (travel, events, etc). Last promotion cycle (January 2023), most developers did not receive a raise. Their explanation? To reduce spending as much as possible.
Our latest earnings report shows that we are indeed profitable now. Our stock price has shot up, and is almost at a record high. That's great.
Nevertheless, leadership just announced that our Summer promotion cycle will be canceled, and all raises/promotions will be postponed until next year. Their explanation? Same as before: reduce spending for profitability's sake.
On one hand, I appreciate that we’re profitable. A lot of companies aren’t profitable and never will be. I also understand that we’re a public company, and that stock price matters most.
On the other hand, it seems a bit shortsighted. Imagine that I wanted to cut back on my own spending. Should I starve myself? That’ll save money, for sure. But is it sustainable? Similarly, is minimizing employee compensation and career growth a sustainable way to become profitable?
I forgot to mention that they’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to take the product organization (200-300 people) on an epic retreat this summer. Awesome, and much appreciated. But it doesn't quite jive with the stuff above.
What am I missing here? How should I interpret this situation?