> I had made a verbal deal with the previous CTO in which I would be raised in 6 months time after being hired

> My conclusion: never accept verbal agreements again.

Was the verbal agreement not honored? 2-3% after 6 months is not nothing.

It seems your problem was accepted an offer 20% below what you should.

No. Verbal was 6 months: give raise.

Actual was at 6/7 month be told that contingent on performance you would get a raise of 2-3% at 12 months.

Being 20% lower than market rate is definitely the problem and a signal that they don't want to pay appropriately.

Edit: if you don't value your worth appropriately from the get go, why would the employer?

> raise of 2-3% at 12 months

Ah, I missed that was delayed.

>>It seems your problem was accepting an offer 20% below what you should.

Yes, that was indeed his mistake.

And so was expecting a 20% raise six months after being hired. That is, frankly, a ridiculous proposition.

Agreed that taking the low-paying position was a mistake if pay was a priority. Disagree that expecting a raise at the time he was verbally promised a raise was his mistake.

He wasn't promised a 20% raise

Verbal agreements rarely work out. Even among well-meaning parties, it's far too easy for someone to misremember or misinterpret the agreement. If you do enter a verbal agreement, write it down in an email and send it to the other party. That way there's a paper trail to clarify any disputes.

1. Did you verbally agree to the 20% with the CTO as well? Otherwise, it sounds like they honored the verbal agreement and got a raise after 6 months. It was just less than what you decided you wanted later.

2. Your conclusion is spot on. I've never seen this kind of agreement actually work: it's almost always FUD. If they're not willing to put it in an offer letter, it's not real.

The agreement with the CTO was to have a raise after 6 months. There was no previous agreement of a specific number, just a "raise".

After 6/7 months I went to talk to one of the founders about that specific issue, i.e. that I was promised a raise, and that I wasn't expecting anything below 20%. I came to know during the time that I work there that was being paid well below my coworkers (and the market rate in general for my position).

Their response was that I would only get raised on the next company review (still some months to go, but note that I was promised a raise after 6 months), the raise would be around 2%-3% (note that I said to them, quite direct, that I was being underpaid, at least 20%), and the project manager even said that I would be subjected to a performance review before they would give me a raise.

So they failed me at least with 3 things: no raise after 6 months as agreed (still some months to next review), would not raise me enough so I would still be underpaid, and I could even not get raised because I would have to be reviewed first..

Basically, I quit on the next working day, and one or two months later, most of the team got laid off, so there was bigger problems on that specific company..

Expecting a 20% raise after six months is ludicrous.

Expecting employees to stick around when they find out they're 20% behind peers is also ludicrous.

I can't imagine the majority of managers fixing it and I can't imagine an employee doing anything other than finding a new job. Everyone loses this one.

He was expecting to be paid the same as his colleagues and the industry standard. That sounds like a fair expectation, irrespective of the percentage raise that implied.

Then he shouldn't have taken the low offer to begin with. That's on him at least as much as the employer. He's free to leave of course, but complaining about it after the fact?

I don't feel complaining about being paid under market rate is a strange thing. 20% raises are not ludicrous in any way, if this prevents an employee from leaving.

I didn't say he should have stayed, he did the right thing, but going in at x and expecting x+20% in six months is ridiculous. If he was expecting that then he should have got that pecific number negotiated up front.

The company has more information than the candidate when making salary offers. If they negotiate in bad faith, that burns up goodwill. It's their decision to do it! I've never heard someone ask if their salary is in-line with the other members of their team (adjusted for performance/experience): it's a given assumption that _the company isn't going to pay you massively less than your peers_.

Plenty of companies do, because HR does the negotiations & their motivation is to minimise employee costs. If you're not negotiating with the recruiter/hiring manager, you're likely to get a poor offer.

Yes, I learned an important lesson about verbal agreements with my current employer. They're worthless.

If they aren't willing to put it on paper, it doesn't exist.

> I had made a verbal deal with the previous CTO in which I would be raised in 6 months time after being hired

> My conclusion: never accept verbal agreements again.

Was the verbal agreement not honored? 2-3% after 6 months is not nothing.

If you read the statement again, it sounded like they gave them a review after 6 months, but told them the raise would come after a year review. So he did have a review, but no raise.

Always leave a paper trail. E.g. after your verbal agreement you should have sent an email to the CTO (and others) summarizing the contents of the agreement.