Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by giantg2 1725 days ago
Thank you for the comment.

"Personally I’m working for a large corporation and I don’t see a lot of double-talk or broken policies or broken promises."

That's good, but I know there are people at my company that would say the same thing. A lot of it depends on the individual's experience. Is it possible that you are getting good reviews or your manager likes you, while someone else is getting poor reviews based on a made up reason?

As for some personal examples, I have seen multiple company policies violated. I have also seen the company try to sell us an idea that's junk while telling us it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The company says that an average rating should be based against defined standards and not be competitive. I know of departments that will require managers to 'pick' someone on their team for a below average rating if they picked someone for an above average rating to "balance it out". They will also fo point counting in some departments eventhough HR says they aren't allowed to (the rating process is secretive wo you'd have to throw a manager friend under the bus to prove anything). There are also some additional part-time roles (security champion) that are supposed to be evaluated as part of your core job responsibilities, yet most departments view them as extracurricular.

The company says the standard working hours are 7.5 hours per day unless the position specifically says otherwise. Now, I know that stuff like elevations, pre support, or critical deadlines can mean occasional extra hours - that's fine. I was told that all I needed to do to get to a senior level was stay until 5pm. Ok, so I work 8-4 and you want me to work 9-5? Nope, they want me to work 8.5 hours every day. So why should I take a rate cut for a position with more responsibilities? I work for a financial company that's always saying they want IT to have more financial acumen. Yet they can't explain to me why I should increase my working hours by about 13% for a 7% raise, meaning I will be paid less per hour. This is an even better deal for the company since a large expense for them are the benefits not related to pay, like health insurance.

They changed the promotion structure so there are more levels. They tried to sell this as a good thing. But to get to the same level of compensation, you require more promotions. The typical path was 3 10% promotions. Now it's 4 7% promotions to get similar base pay, but you would need a 5th promotion to reach a similar overall compensation due to the profit sharing structure. Now this might sound similar enough, but it doesnt account for time. That 5th promotion is pretty rare, and the 4th takes a long time to get to. The earlier you are saving money, the more it compounds. So when you hit each level under the old structure you could hit it at the same time as you could under the new structure but the raise is almost 50% higher. Now you also have to wait longer to hit the highest level, further delaying that "extra" income and it's compounding effect. The reason they made this change was because they were losing too many people to earlier retirements. Yet they sell this negative change as a positive.

The bug plug in the interview was that they don't outsource and they never layoff. They do both now. I lost my specialty to outsourcing.

I had a manger tell me he was going to give me the highest rating but I "slacked off" in the last month. I was on PTO for 2.5 weeks for my wedding and honeymoon and put in extra hours for the prior 2 weeks to get things done or turned over. So much for that policy that PTO won't be held against you...

1 comments

Yes! This is exactly the kind of coloring that really helps fill in the gaps in your first comment and helps me understand what you mean. So, I don’t have solutions for you, but I can still share my reactions from my own perspective.

You are experiencing a serious and legitimate culture issue, and I know it exists and happens inside some companies. My impression based on hearsay is that this is worse in financial companies than many other kinds, but I know it happens elsewhere. I’m not convinced that speaking to your manager is a viable avenue to fixing it, because your manager is part of the problem, or for you potentially the whole problem - telling them that is not going to make them suddenly recognize it and fix things, it will probably only cause problems for you and get you labeled as uncooperative.

My additional personal reaction is that quibbling over single digit percentage compensation versus a promotion might be a little short sighted - perhaps losing sight of what’s important. The bigger question you need to be asking is what you really want in the future, and where you want to be. If you don’t want a promotion because it seems like a pay cut, then think about whether your time at that company has already reached it’s ceiling, and whether you should move on. If you don’t want extra responsibility, maybe you aren’t really interested in promotions and what they come with, which is perfectly fine, but that also might imply something about how much money you’ll ever be able to make.

A lot of managers and companies definitely will look at superficial indicators of how “invested” and “engaged” you are in your job, so it’s up to you to figure out how to display the right set of indications that you’re above-average in terms of your commitment compared to your fellow employees. Talking to your manager a lot is helpful in that regard, but not necessarily in a critical or adversarial way, more in a help them do their job kind of way.

Being told you lost rating over PTO is pretty awful, that seems like cause for some kind of action - however you probably shouldn’t trust HR by default, you should probably communicate to your manager that you feel it was rather unfair, and remind them about the extra time you put in. Is it possible your manager was surprised by your PTO, or did you plan well in advance and remind them beforehand? Did you communicate the extra hours you were putting in before and during the time you were doing it? Do other managers break the PTO policy, or is it just your manager? Are other people on your team having the same problem? There are always shitty managers, maybe that is your problem, and not something more general. Are you on the radar of your manager’s manager?

If your manager is toxic, you might be trapped, and the best move you can make is to leave, not to confront them. But if your expectations are a little higher than others and/or you’re making assumptions and getting upset before having had a complete conversation, then it’s possible you could start those conversations and put yourself on a better path.

"Is it possible your manager was surprised by your PTO, or did you plan well in advance and remind them beforehand? Did you communicate the extra hours you were putting in before and during the time you were doing it?"

Yeah, they knew. I sent emails to the team and others that I worked with to let them know, filled out the team calendar, and turn on my OOO notifications. All the expected behaviors.

Yeah, I'll never move up and make more money. I'd love to make more, but it won't ever happen. I did like working as a tech lead, but I'm not going to do it without the pay that comes with it.

I disagree about it being shortsighted to bring up the raise issue. I would be fine with a 7% raise as long as it didn't mean more hours. If we dont stand up for fair compensation practices then only the people in power will really benefit. Just look at the percent change in CEO vs employee pay. It seems a lot of that change is because employees aren't standing up for fair compensation. Like at year end this year, if you don't get at least a 5% raise/ COLA then the company is effectively paying less next year due to inflation. Many people who are not adept at finance will look at a 5% raise and be ecstatic since COLA for the past decade has be about 2-3%.

I agree that conversations will not help on these subjects. You mentioned about this being a bad manager. I have had a couple of bad managers. Some of them may not have been bad themselves, but most of the authority happens at the department head level, so they might not have had a choice. I can't really leave either since most of my experience was in obscure tech (Neoxam and FileNet).

I've always done the things that they like to see for engagement (except one department that seemed to want 10 hour days; more hours = more engaged). I mostly did things like system improvements, action communities, knowledge sharing sessions, etc because I actually liked them. But in the end it never makes a difference.

It might be good to define more carefully what “fair compensation” actually means. CEO vs employee isn’t a very good analogy, IMO. It’s broken for sure, but it doesn’t make a good comparison. Software engineers these days are making very good money and have very good working conditions compared to most other industries, even among other skilled white collar careers like doctors. What’s “fair” is a fairly vague and relative idea.

It might be good to really discuss your value too, which is half of the “deal” you’re compensated for. Even if your manager doesn’t know it, you’re not really being compensated for your hours, you’re being compensated for your knowledge and skills, in combination with your willingness to apply them toward your company’s goals. What I’m getting at is that the company may be happy to offer raises if it sees value, and it may take some communication and negotiation on your part for them to see that value, it’s unlikely to happen on it’s own. The company, and especially bad managers, have a vested interest in framing your job as easily replaceable.

I mean fair compensation practices. For example, I wouldn't consider it a fair practice to pay a lower rate for a higher level job by requiring consistently longer hours. I also don't consider it a fair practice to ignore policies related to ratings (which influence promotions and bonuses). The least they can do is follow their own rules. I get that some parts of equality and equity can be vague. I think this is a good example of a broken economic system if the position with more expectations pays less. It's illogical and I think it would be hard for anyone to defend it as fair - my manager certainly couldn't.

"Software engineers these days are making very good money and have very good working conditions compared to most other industries, even among other skilled white collar careers like doctors."

I think the compensation and conditions really depend on a lot of things. The median salary for software devs is about $100k-110k and are largely located in above average COL areas. I earn under $100k, have almost 10 years experience, and an MSIS. I consider the money to be ok, not "very good". The physical conditions are good, but the psychological conditions can be bad in some instances (just look at all the burnout).

For example, I know a guy who started at $90k as a diesel electric mechanic with great benefits. That's tens of thousands saved in college costs. Plus you can start working sooner. Plenty of jobs can pay that kind of money, so I don't see software dev as anything special.

I've tried the communication/negotiation part. It didn't work. The managers have almost no power within the large corporate structure. So I adjusted my willingness down to match the pay. If I actually want to make more, I'll just leave (although that's not an option due to constraints in my personal life). Another thing to note is that value is a tricky thing to measure in a IT as a cost center model. For example, how do you value security work?

It's funny, the company has been going on and on for years about the war for talent, talent shortage, etc. It's all just PR for the current employees to feel safe. They won't actually do anything to retain people.

> The least they can do is follow their own rules.

Do you have any avenues to report policy breaking anonymously?

> I know a guy who started at $90k as a diesel electric mechanic with great benefits. That’s tens of thousands saved in college costs. Plus you can start working sooner.

It does happen for sure, but be aware that this is a widely shared narrative talking point that comes from a political agenda. The US Fed publishes statistics about this exact issue, and I was really surprised how big the average difference in earnings is for college degrees - it’s about 2x for an accredited bachelor’s diploma on average across the entire US. It’s 3x for advanced degrees. I thought the average would be maybe 15 or 20 percent, but a 2x average for all Americans is freaking enormous and should not be written off with anecdotes. Note also that the gap is growing, not shrinking, and has been for a long time.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2019/10/...

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synops...

Anyway, that’s interesting stuff, but beside the more important business of improving your personal situation, and my rantings probably don’t help. It sounds like you’re in a bit of a stuck / bad situation. I’m sorry to hear that and I hope you can find a way to improve it and enjoy your work. Managers with no power certainly could be one of the reasons that managers get petty and pushy with their teams. I know it’s not fun though. Good luck!

The anonymous reporting is never really anonymous if it comes from a device on the VPN. I've heard they don't do anything about it when it is reported. I might give that a try next time, but I doubt it will make a difference based on what some others have said about past experiences.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of the BLS stuff. I'd love to see some more location specific stuff. It's really not unusual for a skilled tradesman like an electrician, plumber, or mechanic to be making over $75k in my area and yet it seems that many of the Dev jobs are around that salary. Specifically when looking at wealth, I wonder if lifestyle plays a large role. I feel like many of the tradesmen I know like to spend that money on somewhat expensive hobbies and don't know as much about investing (ie college grads generally take a an econ course).

I don't know. I guess I'm just jaded and burnt out.