To be brief, I work for a bank...none of the banks are hurting. I received the equivalent of a 2.5% raise. My question is, why so low? I was under the impression banks did very well last year, and I received basically the best review I could receive (only 5% of folks received the full 3% as the CEO states only 5% of workforce performs exceptionally in a year, and as such only 5% are awarded the full 3%)
This is a employee and non-profit owned bank, meaning that its not run by boards. Why wouldn't you reward good workers with a higher salary? I am accustom to earning more than 3% and have earned as high as 10% salary increase.
Perhaps I am just making my case here...
I don't buy this 3% raise BS. I can EASILY go get a job that pays me 15% more. Do I wait out these 3% raises in lieu of a Pension in 10 years...and an opportunity to receive a 15% bonus every year..or do I walk and increase my bottom line?
am I way out of line for complaining about this or are other bank employees receiving similar raises at or around 3% ??
The new realities in the world of work are thus:
1) The labor market is like any other market: supply and demand. Regardless of meaningless organizational phrases such as employer of choice,
employees are nothing more than an expense to employers.
2) In the labor market, the number of job seekers who are "average" exceeds the demand of jobs needing to be filled.
3) Employers are engaged in a so-called "war for talent", and if you are that talent,
have no life and are willing to sell your soul, you'll be paid accordingly and handsomely. Everyone else will get scraps. (Additionally, in organizations today, obscene amounts of money is flowing to the top 10-20%, to the management and so-called leadership ranks; the bottom 80% aren't doing so well, eating cake, basically).
4) Standard raises before the 08 meltdown were 3% - since then employers learned they could get away with 2.5% without adversely affecting turnover.
5) A high % of employers use pay-for-performance and a bell curve when awarding raises. Following a bell curve, approx.
80% of employees will get 2.5%, about 10% will get less than that, and another 10% will get more than that. This means unless you are
killing yourself at your job, you most likely shouldn't expect more than 2.5%.
6) If you can "easily" (as you say) get another job with a 15% increase in pay, I would personally do so immediately because (a) it's doubtful your current organization will match that (unless you've grossly underestimated your worth to them, which is entirely possible), (b) there's little, if any, guarantee the pension will be there in 10 years (given the historic track record of pensions reneged on/converted to DCB's); (c) your current organization could merge with another, your department could downsize, or you could be lucky enough to get a boss-from-hell supervisor who "eliminates" your job, either through restructure or through the "progressive discipline process".
Loyalty to an employer can be a suckers game, if you're not careful. My recommendation is to be loyal to (good)
bosses, to (good)
people, not organizations. You could be blown out the door tomorrow if a "
business decision" was deemed to warrant it. If you can reasonably job hop your way to salary increases while gaining added experience, contacts, and expanded opportunities, it's certainly a worthwhile strategy.
All you have to sell is your time. Just as organizations seek to maximize their return on
equity, your job is to maximize your return on
energy expended. This means, for as long as you must work, your job is to get as much return in benefits, salary, and other perks in return for the life energy you expend by working at that job versus other things you could be doing.
Hope this give you some perspective. Good luck, whatever you decide.
