[Bartweiss]

> "we will raise your pay by $a-double-digit-number %" ... "I will start looking for my next job tomorrow"

I've always wondered how much value employers lose via this sort of error. 'Reactive' compensation absolutely does drive people away, for good reason. Retaining employees by matching outside offers is even worse; outside the very highest levels it fosters instability and encourages people to interview elsewhere.

So sure, your employer saved ($X annually * years without raise). But then they lost an experienced employee, likely to a competitor, had to go through a new search-and-training period, and quite possibly had their prior crappy salaries on Glassdoor driving away candidates.

I assume it's a net win sometimes, but I strongly suspect it's often a short-term tactic that ends up not only mistreating employees but losing money.

[notabot]

> I've always wondered how much value employers lose via this sort of error.

I suspect nobody can come up with a number that would convince everyone in the chain in a large organization. If that could be done, I wouldn't end up in this situation in the first place.

[msie]

But many employees would stay if they got the raise they asked for. Is it worse that the employer initiates the raise?

[notabot]

The act sent out two messages to me.

1. They have low-balled me before, they will do it again.

2. They don't pay based on how much value I generate but as little as they can to prevent me from moving.

Royality is a two way street. While the company doesn't have my best interest in mind, why should I have theirs in mind? It would be foolish for me to not look around. Once I put in the effort to look around and got a better offer, I might as well leave the company for good.