People wouldn't be job hopping if you could get the same raise as the new guys.
Not saying I like this but it's the current situation in Europe where the power lies with the company and the ones who loose are those that are too loyal to the company(most employees outside SW dev don't bother looking around every few years like we do).
2. If you don't want people to job-hop because they see what some new hire earns, then you're either overpaying the new one (and unnecessarily alienating your workers) or you're underpaying the current employees, and you should raise their salary or expect them to hop.
2. That's how it should be in an ideal world but the reality is different and companies know through years of experience that the current system works better for them rather than the one you'd want.
Supposedly you can because you're offering them 10% more than the rest of your employees...
I hate this approach, but for most companies in Europe it's the reality that works in their favor.
- Worth is subjective. I'm sure we've all had conversations about someone where some view the person as great and others view the same person as meh or under performing. Value is also determined based on information, which usually people don't have the same amount of. So very possible the hiring person or committee sees different value in a person than fellow engineers or teammates.
- Value judgement, especially for hiring is also point in time. Could very well be the person as presented during interview is a rockstar, but after landing on the team doesn't perform well for whatever reason.
If you have established salary bands, then you cannot justify offering somebody something outside of that range. That defeats the entire purpose of having salary bands to begin with, and not complying with them would be lying to your employees. What salary bands are, is a levelling mechanism. The answer to “why does x get paid more than me?” should be “because for some particular reason we decided x was worth more to us than you”. With the levelling mechanism, you have less options for paying people what they’re worth, instead you simply decide that everybody will get paid +/- a few % of whatever the average value of an employee in that role is, regardless of their contribution.
Not if the new guy is 10% better at what they do.
And if he's not, then maybe the others actually deserve that 10% more.
Good thing.
In most cases, this is not the case. In fact, it's often the case that the new person is really new and will require significant hand holding to be productive.
They pay them 10% more because the new person has multiple offers, and most existing employees aren't seeking alternatives, so they have little leverage.
Seems to be a good idea to change that.
This sounds like a massive win for all but the bottom of the barrel tier companies. Finding and training new people (while giving them 10% more) as the old guys who know their shit leave for a better job is super expensive.
If companies had pressure to give raises internally, this would give less reason to hop jobs. I think that's a good thing for mostly everyone (including their employers). Everyone except dirt cheap shops where nobody wants to work anyway if they have choices.
But who is encouraging you? Since in Europe/Rest of the World(except US/UK) companies never mention how much they're willing to pay and even the recruiters they hire are sometimes not allowed to mention the upper range to their candidates. So nobody knows they're underpaid unless you're willing to take your free time and apply to jobs, contact recruiters and go interview at a few companies and go through some rounds of negotiations.
And even then lots of companies will look at your application very suspiciously that you're applying to new jobs so soon and they'll expect something's wrong with your relationship with your current employer or with you so some might not even make you an offer.
For most senior employees with families that's a lot of trouble to go through so they don't even bother unless a recruiter knocks on their door with the offer of a lifetime.
Lots of employees here have bought into this company spread propaganda that job hopping like in the US will make you unemployable in the future.
As the employees get older and get tied down with families and homes and also Job Stockholm Syndrome they're less likely to shop around for new jobs so the savings on salaries on seniors being paid below market are huge.
And afaik, large companies and large successful projects tend to have more stable core team behind them.
But is that ultimately true? It feels to me that the companies hold the power to make that true, regardless of the propaganda. So even if you try to job hop, after a certain age they have all the power to make you unemployable. Am I wrong? (I hope I am)
I think constant job hopping is bad in 3 situations: 1) If you work a non lifelong-learning job. 2) If you work a job that is mostly industry-specific relationship based. 3) If you are jumping around to different job roles entirely, where you never really become exceptionally talented at any single role.
My general rule of thumb for deciding when to job hop is when I feel as if I've stopped learning new things.
Why not?