Promotion, lower pay rise than expected

[whoami]

oldcynic said:

Any company paying a 10% rise annually would get my attention

Yes, largely because it is unsustainable.

[Bodo]

MaybeSomeday said:

... I've had the same fixed pay rise amount every year since starting, which has been good given the economy, but obviously has become less percentage wise as the salary has gone up. 11%, 10.5%, 10% the past years. Now, after my promotion and great performance report, I've been given the same fixed amount again, making the raise just under 9%. ...

Here's a model that some companies follow:
- the initial salary you agreed is your price "100%"
- you get an annual pay rise based on inflation and/or performance of 2% to 3%
- if you get promoted one entire step (ie from being a team member to being the disciplinary team leader), that is worth 20% rise.

Scenario 1 (the above): 100%*(1.025^3)*1.2= 129%
Scenario 2 (yours): 100%*1.11*1.105*1.1*1.09= 147%

-> you're better off by 14% - or 18% in absolute terms, and even more when you consider the amount of money that you actually carried home.

Edited by Bodo on Sunday 14th December 10:54

[mph1977]

sidicks said:

Richjam said:

Only on pistonheads be thankfull your not in the public sector you would have got a paycut.

Which public sector workers had a genuine paycut??

other than those who are re-deployed ? or have been denied Cost of living rise because they were getting a competency based increment in the same FY ? or those who have been expected to continue to develop their skills and knowledge in line with the knowledge and skills frameworks for their role but not been allowed incremental progression.

or are we into the wonderful world of Sidicks maths werea pay rise of less than RPI or CPI is still considered a 'rise' despite the net result being reduced purchasing power ...

in theNHS and Military the pay rise on promotion is usually around 3 % unless you are a flier and promote before you have reached the first common spine point between old and new role as the competency based increments often overlap by several points at the top of the grade below / bottom of the next rank / grade.

Edited by mph1977 on Tuesday 16th December 13:07

[yorkshireegg]

It's pretty difficult to judge the situation without some details.

OP mentioned starting as a trainee and moving gradually up to this senior role. If he was being trained how to flip burgers and is now chief burger flipper extraordinaire, those would be some modest pay rises from £10k to £15k and maybe some more should be expected for reaching the dizzying heights of senior burger flipper.

In some kind of consultancy role starting at, say, £30k and finishing on £45k, you'd have to be a very happy bunny for doing so well the last few years.

So which is it, OP?

[mikerons88]

yorkshireegg said:

It's pretty difficult to judge the situation without some details.

OP mentioned starting as a trainee and moving gradually up to this senior role. If he was being trained how to flip burgers and is now chief burger flipper extraordinaire, those would be some modest pay rises from £10k to £15k and maybe some more should be expected for reaching the dizzying heights of senior burger flipper.

In some kind of consultancy role starting at, say, £30k and finishing on £45k, you'd have to be a very happy bunny for doing so well the last few years.

So which is it, OP?

You missed this bit in the OP?

"My work also is directly chargeable on a rate to customers - that rate has been higher since the promotion due to my seniority?"

[yorkshireegg]

mikerons88 said:

You missed this bit in the OP?

"My work also is directly chargeable on a rate to customers - that rate has been higher since the promotion due to my seniority?"

Could just mean he gets to make the more expensive burgers

Not sure what your point is, though; the OP still hasn't given any indication to the role. Without this information it's difficult to decide if he has had a fair outcome or not.

[mikerons88]

yorkshireegg said:

Could just mean he gets to make the more expensive burgers

Not sure what your point is, though; the OP still hasn't given any indication to the role. Without this information it's difficult to decide if he has had a fair outcome or not.

Its clear its not a 10k to 15k role. More liklely 25-35 to whatever.

[yorkshireegg]

mikerons88 said:

Its clear its not a 10k to 15k role. More liklely 25-35 to whatever.

It's not clear at all. Where has that been stated?

I'm not disagreeing with you as that is the impression I get too. But like I highlighted in my last post, somewhat tongue in cheek, the amount charged to the customer for goods / services is not always reflected fully in an employees wages but it depends on the sector and roles involved.

[blueg33]

whoami said:

oldcynic said:

Any company paying a 10% rise annually would get my attention

Yes, largely because it is unsustainable.

You cant make that comment without knowing more about the company. If its showing growth in excess of the cost increases then it is sustainable. The question is how long for, most companies only forecast 5 years ahead

[edc]

You should be able to look at the role and associated salary in isolation from the % increase. How does it compare internally and externally? The historical data you compare against is also a little irrelevent. Sure, it sets a level of expectation, but what is more meaningful is to compare your increase to this year's increase for promotion vs no promotion. You may find that the average increase may only be for example 5% this year not 10%. In most pay review processes you will have a cost of living based element and then perhaps a performance based element. Yours sounds quite arbitrary so where there is no logic it is hard to argue with logic against it.

[Richjam]

sidicks said:

Which public sector workers had a genuine paycut??

My wife works in a school as a HLTA with SEN kids no pay rise for 4 years plus adjustments to contract that have left her about 5% down and that's without factoring in inflation.

[Ian Geary]

sidicks said:

Which public sector workers had a genuine paycut??

My pay awards have been 1%, 0%, 0% in the last 3 years, although 2.2% might be on the cards despite unions not wanting people over middle grades to get it.

So a cut in real terms if not cash terms. But we did lose 3 days holiday the other year though, so that would have reduced my actual pay per hours worked rate.

Also, with promotions now, my place tends to bundle management roles together, so whereas a year ago we had 4 heads of finance and 9 middle managers, we're down to 2 heads and 6 middle managers.

Problem is: the work hasn't changed, so managers are spread thinner and there is less time to plan, develop staff and do quality assurance work.

Hey ho. We just need to get used to it, but I certainly wouldn't be complaining about those pay awards.

Even when the magic money tap was turned on, pay awards never got over 3.5% (that I can remember since 2000).

Ian

[TheAngryDog]

I'd love a pay rise.

[Podie]

Firstly, well done OP on the promotion. The general feeling is that you've done well, and largely it seems that the company has looked after you pretty well. However, in giving you decent percentage increases over the years, your expectations have been set somewhat (as evidenced on this thread). If the job is a big change, then I can perhaps understand why you are questioning it, given the previous increases.

Personally, the only occasions I've ever had a pay rise in my career is when I've moved jobs or had a promotion.

OP - out of curiosity, what percentage increase would you have expected?