Employee asks HR why new employees are getting paid more, gets ridiculous response

[maxamusa]

I'm sure that person will speak on it but what I can tell you at my job, every Director is given a certain amount of $ to distribute to the management folks. If I get a high raise then that means it was taken from someone else. I'm positive I'm getting the most raise percentage for any of my coworkers so I know they take a hit on it. Once I knew this I never bytched about my raises again. It's kinda fukked up especially if you have a great core of workers under one Director but that's how they keep the balance and favoritism low.

For my job I work closely with HR and directly with the person that approves people raises. Believe me when I tell you this HR person is on the same boat and sees who is underpaid and overpaid and this person feels some type of way about it because she is comparing her salary with everyone else. She is currently looking to get into another function because she knows where the real money is at and can properly negotiate what she wants because she knows how the pay scale is structured and what can and can not get approved. It's a secret in what the ranges are but she knows it because it's literally part of her HR job. She's the one that told me I can get an education adjustment and the process of it. Most people don't know and don't ask for it but I know now.

Isn't that just paid for performance?

 

[Arizax2]

Isn't that just paid for performance?

To my understanding the rating for regular performer and exceptional performer is minimal. The big % drop is anything less than regular performer.

At my job I remember being told to be a exceptional performer you have to the the Kobe of the team. Problem is if your team is compromised of Kobe, LeBron and Shaq someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

 

[GreenGhxst]

 

[Mass]

Im glad we all agree that company loyalty is some bullshyt they fed us to keep us down

 

[Umoja]

This is why it is important for customers to complain and for unions to form.

Companies don't really give a shyt about experience. As far as they're concerned, the experience makes up a small fragment of their business. The work might seem important to the employee because they have their manager breathing down their neck. It is not important to the company as a whole.

The only way this changes is when workers act in unison and when consumers demand more.

 

[MikelArteta]

its how it is and sad, a new employee can come in and negotiate for more salary.

While most people if they go to their boss and want a raise will be shot down

 

[Worthless Loser]

I'm really appreciative of your contribution to this thread; repped.

I'm not sure how to phrase this without being misconstrued as insulting; but I'll just say it and mean no offense.

How does HR even determine the "relative" experience?

I know you mentioned a grid but thats just for pay to experience right?

Does whoever did the interview with the candidate make that evaluation and report it 2 you guys?

You good.

Response to question 1: HR looks at your resume and compare each of your previous jobs to the job you are applying for. When interviewing, they will ask you to talk more about each job to get the full picture of what you did. Once they got all the info, they will determine the "relevant experience" and how each previous job should be counted.

Example: You applying to a new company to work as a HR Compensation Analyst. You currently have been working as a Compensation Analyst for 4 years. Before that, you were in Marketing where you did a bunch of research and reports. You worked in that job for 8 years. Your job as a Compensation Analyst will be counted as "whole" towards years of experience. 4 full years. Your marketing experience would only be counted as half because while you may have experience running complex reports which is what the Comp Analyst role do, you don't have the Compensation/wage experience so your experience will only be counted as half. 0.5 x 8 years = 4 years of experience for a total of 8 years between both jobs.

Response to question 2: Yeah the grids for each position is based on experience. Its a starting rate and a max rate based on experience. It don't have anything to do with education. But they use those same grids for internal candidates who are transferring to another department or when they get promoted to a supervisor or manager job. I've seen people transfer to another department and have to take a pay cut because the job they transferring to got lower wages on that grid. Likewise I've seen people transfer from one entry level job to another and get a pay increase because that job's grid got higher wages.

Example 2: You been working in a job for 6 years and now they about to promote you to supervisor. They will not consider those 6 years as "whole" because you never had any supervisory/leadership experience in that role, but you have experience doing the job without the supervisor responsibility. So they will consider the 6 years as half experience. 0.5 x 6 = 3 years of experience.

Response to question 3: Once the HR Recruiter is done and they found someone they want to hire, they will email the HR Compensation person with the total calculated experience and the wage proposal to the candidate based on that experience. HR comp will either agree with the wage proposal or come back with something different. Once the wage its agreed upon they will give it to the candidate.

 

[maxamusa]

its how it is and sad, a new employee can come in and negotiate for more salary.

While most people if they go to their boss and want a raise will be shot down

In todays climate to employers want people to do more with less. A lot of jobs offer %90 OTJ training sprinkled in with CBTs(which are damn near useless). Its foolish because the Vets will make sure to hoe the shyt out of the new guys if they find out they getting $$$