Who's getting an inflation based pay rise?
Discussion
I run the very small UK arm of a US company, had a good year, good growth, all to plan. I had a call with the CEO last night to catch up on the business. He asked about potential issues in the business and the postal strikes and wider winter of discontent came up as one of our current challenges.
Turned my phone on this morning to an email telling me to increase everyones salary by 10% immediately as he doesn't want to rock the boat as we are performing well and he doesn't want to loose anyone from our team.
I had prepared a very long business case for a double digit raise in January but I don't need to send it!
Turned my phone on this morning to an email telling me to increase everyones salary by 10% immediately as he doesn't want to rock the boat as we are performing well and he doesn't want to loose anyone from our team.
I had prepared a very long business case for a double digit raise in January but I don't need to send it!
snuffy said:
soupdragon1 said:
Blanket % increases aren't a good method across a business
Take person A at £25k and person B at £50k
Give them 10% payrises annually.
In 5 years, the pay gap goes from £25k to £40k
If person A wants person B's salary, then they need to do person B's job.Take person A at £25k and person B at £50k
Give them 10% payrises annually.
In 5 years, the pay gap goes from £25k to £40k
Yazza54 said:
snuffy said:
soupdragon1 said:
Blanket % increases aren't a good method across a business
Take person A at £25k and person B at £50k
Give them 10% payrises annually.
In 5 years, the pay gap goes from £25k to £40k
If person A wants person B's salary, then they need to do person B's job.Take person A at £25k and person B at £50k
Give them 10% payrises annually.
In 5 years, the pay gap goes from £25k to £40k
This logic makes sense if person B:
eats twice as much as per A
Drives twice as far every day
Uses twice the amount of energy
Has twice as many kids
Wears twice the amount of clothes
Has twice as many phone/TV/Broadband contracts
etc etc
Hopefully you can see the point here. Or to put it another way. Stuff is getting more expensive, so people want payrises to help pay for increased costs. The headline inflation % absolutely impacts those on the lowest pay, with the impact gradually decreasing the further up the payscale you go.
Take a CEO on £10m per annum. Lovely. Does that CEO need a £1m payrise to help offset the fact groceries and fuel are more expensive? How much food, fuel etc would you need to consume for that £1m payrise to make sense? Even just 1% payrise gives them £100k more to deal with inflation.
Like I've said before, we need to unhinge ourselves from inflation being x% so our payrise should be y%. If every company/organisation did that, the gaps between low level workers, mid level and senior would just get bigger and bigger and bigger, which is completely unsustainable, let alone fair.
soupdragon1 said:
There is a serious lack of awareness from some people and/or lack of understand of mathematics and compounding effects
This logic makes sense if person B:
eats twice as much as per A
Drives twice as far every day
Uses twice the amount of energy
Has twice as many kids
Wears twice the amount of clothes
Has twice as many phone/TV/Broadband contracts
etc etc
Hopefully you can see the point here. Or to put it another way. Stuff is getting more expensive, so people want payrises to help pay for increased costs. The headline inflation % absolutely impacts those on the lowest pay, with the impact gradually decreasing the further up the payscale you go.
Take a CEO on £10m per annum. Lovely. Does that CEO need a £1m payrise to help offset the fact groceries and fuel are more expensive? How much food, fuel etc would you need to consume for that £1m payrise to make sense? Even just 1% payrise gives them £100k more to deal with inflation.
Like I've said before, we need to unhinge ourselves from inflation being x% so our payrise should be y%. If every company/organisation did that, the gaps between low level workers, mid level and senior would just get bigger and bigger and bigger, which is completely unsustainable, let alone fair.
Person A : £25kThis logic makes sense if person B:
eats twice as much as per A
Drives twice as far every day
Uses twice the amount of energy
Has twice as many kids
Wears twice the amount of clothes
Has twice as many phone/TV/Broadband contracts
etc etc
Hopefully you can see the point here. Or to put it another way. Stuff is getting more expensive, so people want payrises to help pay for increased costs. The headline inflation % absolutely impacts those on the lowest pay, with the impact gradually decreasing the further up the payscale you go.
Take a CEO on £10m per annum. Lovely. Does that CEO need a £1m payrise to help offset the fact groceries and fuel are more expensive? How much food, fuel etc would you need to consume for that £1m payrise to make sense? Even just 1% payrise gives them £100k more to deal with inflation.
Like I've said before, we need to unhinge ourselves from inflation being x% so our payrise should be y%. If every company/organisation did that, the gaps between low level workers, mid level and senior would just get bigger and bigger and bigger, which is completely unsustainable, let alone fair.
Person B : £50k
I.e. Person B earns twice that of person A.
Apply 10% a year for 5 years to each salary:
Person A: £40k
Person B: £80k
I.e. Person B still earns twice that of person A.
And as for you second point, it depends on how you think someone should be paid:
a) According to their abilities
b) According to their needs
I think it's (a), but you clearly think it's (b).
If companies start giving pay rises as you suggest, over time, person A's and person B's salaries will converge. But Person A is still doing Person A's job and Person B is still doing Person B's Job. At which point (and most likely before), Person B will conclude there's no point being in a senior role relative to person A and will leave.
I think it's a mixture.
For the most part, in normal times, yes, it's better if both wages go up proportionally.
But if you have what we have now and there's a period of very rapid increase in basic living costs, it's justified to give everyone similar linear increases to help them cope with that.
Sure, you could give the lowest paid people the increase they need to achieve that, and whatever % that is, also give that to higher paid people, but that's going to be very expensive.
So under the circumstances, saying "everyone gets £3k" or whatever may be the best balance of fairness and practicality.
If things settle down next year, sure, go back to "everyone gets x%"
For the most part, in normal times, yes, it's better if both wages go up proportionally.
But if you have what we have now and there's a period of very rapid increase in basic living costs, it's justified to give everyone similar linear increases to help them cope with that.
Sure, you could give the lowest paid people the increase they need to achieve that, and whatever % that is, also give that to higher paid people, but that's going to be very expensive.
So under the circumstances, saying "everyone gets £3k" or whatever may be the best balance of fairness and practicality.
If things settle down next year, sure, go back to "everyone gets x%"
snuffy said:
soupdragon1 said:
There is a serious lack of awareness from some people and/or lack of understand of mathematics and compounding effects
This logic makes sense if person B:
eats twice as much as per A
Drives twice as far every day
Uses twice the amount of energy
Has twice as many kids
Wears twice the amount of clothes
Has twice as many phone/TV/Broadband contracts
etc etc
Hopefully you can see the point here. Or to put it another way. Stuff is getting more expensive, so people want payrises to help pay for increased costs. The headline inflation % absolutely impacts those on the lowest pay, with the impact gradually decreasing the further up the payscale you go.
Take a CEO on £10m per annum. Lovely. Does that CEO need a £1m payrise to help offset the fact groceries and fuel are more expensive? How much food, fuel etc would you need to consume for that £1m payrise to make sense? Even just 1% payrise gives them £100k more to deal with inflation.
Like I've said before, we need to unhinge ourselves from inflation being x% so our payrise should be y%. If every company/organisation did that, the gaps between low level workers, mid level and senior would just get bigger and bigger and bigger, which is completely unsustainable, let alone fair.
Person A : £25kThis logic makes sense if person B:
eats twice as much as per A
Drives twice as far every day
Uses twice the amount of energy
Has twice as many kids
Wears twice the amount of clothes
Has twice as many phone/TV/Broadband contracts
etc etc
Hopefully you can see the point here. Or to put it another way. Stuff is getting more expensive, so people want payrises to help pay for increased costs. The headline inflation % absolutely impacts those on the lowest pay, with the impact gradually decreasing the further up the payscale you go.
Take a CEO on £10m per annum. Lovely. Does that CEO need a £1m payrise to help offset the fact groceries and fuel are more expensive? How much food, fuel etc would you need to consume for that £1m payrise to make sense? Even just 1% payrise gives them £100k more to deal with inflation.
Like I've said before, we need to unhinge ourselves from inflation being x% so our payrise should be y%. If every company/organisation did that, the gaps between low level workers, mid level and senior would just get bigger and bigger and bigger, which is completely unsustainable, let alone fair.
Person B : £50k
I.e. Person B earns twice that of person A.
Apply 10% a year for 5 years to each salary:
Person A: £40k
Person B: £80k
I.e. Person B still earns twice that of person A.
And as for you second point, it depends on how you think someone should be paid:
a) According to their abilities
b) According to their needs
I think it's (a), but you clearly think it's (b).
If companies start giving pay rises as you suggest, over time, person A's and person B's salaries will converge. But Person A is still doing Person A's job and Person B is still doing Person B's Job. At which point (and most likely before), Person B will conclude there's no point being in a senior role relative to person A and will leave.
snuffy said:
soupdragon1 said:
There is a serious lack of awareness from some people and/or lack of understand of mathematics and compounding effects
This logic makes sense if person B:
eats twice as much as per A
Drives twice as far every day
Uses twice the amount of energy
Has twice as many kids
Wears twice the amount of clothes
Has twice as many phone/TV/Broadband contracts
etc etc
Hopefully you can see the point here. Or to put it another way. Stuff is getting more expensive, so people want payrises to help pay for increased costs. The headline inflation % absolutely impacts those on the lowest pay, with the impact gradually decreasing the further up the payscale you go.
Take a CEO on £10m per annum. Lovely. Does that CEO need a £1m payrise to help offset the fact groceries and fuel are more expensive? How much food, fuel etc would you need to consume for that £1m payrise to make sense? Even just 1% payrise gives them £100k more to deal with inflation.
Like I've said before, we need to unhinge ourselves from inflation being x% so our payrise should be y%. If every company/organisation did that, the gaps between low level workers, mid level and senior would just get bigger and bigger and bigger, which is completely unsustainable, let alone fair.
Person A : £25kThis logic makes sense if person B:
eats twice as much as per A
Drives twice as far every day
Uses twice the amount of energy
Has twice as many kids
Wears twice the amount of clothes
Has twice as many phone/TV/Broadband contracts
etc etc
Hopefully you can see the point here. Or to put it another way. Stuff is getting more expensive, so people want payrises to help pay for increased costs. The headline inflation % absolutely impacts those on the lowest pay, with the impact gradually decreasing the further up the payscale you go.
Take a CEO on £10m per annum. Lovely. Does that CEO need a £1m payrise to help offset the fact groceries and fuel are more expensive? How much food, fuel etc would you need to consume for that £1m payrise to make sense? Even just 1% payrise gives them £100k more to deal with inflation.
Like I've said before, we need to unhinge ourselves from inflation being x% so our payrise should be y%. If every company/organisation did that, the gaps between low level workers, mid level and senior would just get bigger and bigger and bigger, which is completely unsustainable, let alone fair.
Person B : £50k
I.e. Person B earns twice that of person A.
Apply 10% a year for 5 years to each salary:
Person A: £40k
Person B: £80k
I.e. Person B still earns twice that of person A.
And as for you second point, it depends on how you think someone should be paid:
a) According to their abilities
b) According to their needs
I think it's (a), but you clearly think it's (b).
If companies start giving pay rises as you suggest, over time, person A's and person B's salaries will converge. But Person A is still doing Person A's job and Person B is still doing Person B's Job. At which point (and most likely before), Person B will conclude there's no point being in a senior role relative to person A and will leave.
I don't 'clearly think its (b)' however as I didn't say that. I was giving an example that giving a CEO 10% because of the cost of living is an absurd thought process.
And A and B salaries won't converge if they get the same ££ every year. The gap would remain at £25k. However that's not healthy either, in the longer term.
The point I'm illustrating is that the further up the payscale you go, the less impact inflationary pressures have as a % of your overall pay.
Someone on £20k is going to feel a £2k hit on their bills a lot more than someone on £1m.
As you've alluded to, renumeration should be linked to the skill/service they are providing. Thats the key point we agree on. What inflation is at the moment is a secondary consideration, rather than the primary consideration. Thats my point. If you believe in skill based renumeration (like I do) then surely you can see that someone on £1m per year shouldn't get £100k payrise simply because of inflation?
Have they added more YOY value to the company and/or have they driven increased company performance to merit another £100k? Maybe they do deserve it then. But you can't on the one hand support skill based renumeration and then say renumeration should be based on inflation.
Those at the lower levels need help and I think most can see that, but for those higher up the payscale, jumping on the bandwagon to get the same % isn't based on a firm logic. I feel like I've made these points already, but surely people can recognise that they make more sense than just doing a blanket % for all.
soupdragon1 said:
I see the points and logic here, although I think you are failing to see mine.
I don't 'clearly think its (b)' however as I didn't say that. I was giving an example that giving a CEO 10% because of the cost of living is an absurd thought process.
And A and B salaries won't converge if they get the same ££ every year. The gap would remain at £25k. However that's not healthy either, in the longer term.
The point I'm illustrating is that the further up the payscale you go, the less impact inflationary pressures have as a % of your overall pay.
Someone on £20k is going to feel a £2k hit on their bills a lot more than someone on £1m.
As you've alluded to, renumeration should be linked to the skill/service they are providing. Thats the key point we agree on. What inflation is at the moment is a secondary consideration, rather than the primary consideration. Thats my point. If you believe in skill based renumeration (like I do) then surely you can see that someone on £1m per year shouldn't get £100k payrise simply because of inflation?
Have they added more YOY value to the company and/or have they driven increased company performance to merit another £100k? Maybe they do deserve it then. But you can't on the one hand support skill based renumeration and then say renumeration should be based on inflation.
Those at the lower levels need help and I think most can see that, but for those higher up the payscale, jumping on the bandwagon to get the same % isn't based on a firm logic. I feel like I've made these points already, but surely people can recognise that they make more sense than just doing a blanket % for all.
Once you get to CEO salaries (£1m, £10m or whatever), all the ideas of linear worth go out of the window really. So the relationship between salary and worth breaks down. When you are at normal salary levels (95% of people earn less than around £80k for example), then inflation does affect all those people to a greater or less extent, but I do take your point that our person A (25k) is more affected than our person B (50k) (as opposed to a CEO on £10m, who's not affected at all).I don't 'clearly think its (b)' however as I didn't say that. I was giving an example that giving a CEO 10% because of the cost of living is an absurd thought process.
And A and B salaries won't converge if they get the same ££ every year. The gap would remain at £25k. However that's not healthy either, in the longer term.
The point I'm illustrating is that the further up the payscale you go, the less impact inflationary pressures have as a % of your overall pay.
Someone on £20k is going to feel a £2k hit on their bills a lot more than someone on £1m.
As you've alluded to, renumeration should be linked to the skill/service they are providing. Thats the key point we agree on. What inflation is at the moment is a secondary consideration, rather than the primary consideration. Thats my point. If you believe in skill based renumeration (like I do) then surely you can see that someone on £1m per year shouldn't get £100k payrise simply because of inflation?
Have they added more YOY value to the company and/or have they driven increased company performance to merit another £100k? Maybe they do deserve it then. But you can't on the one hand support skill based renumeration and then say renumeration should be based on inflation.
Those at the lower levels need help and I think most can see that, but for those higher up the payscale, jumping on the bandwagon to get the same % isn't based on a firm logic. I feel like I've made these points already, but surely people can recognise that they make more sense than just doing a blanket % for all.
Also, yes, if person A and B got continual flat rate increases, they gap would always be 25k. So whilst they would never actually converge, you would get to the point where the percentage difference was not that great, so person B would question why they bother.
It's rather like when the minimum wage increases. Does that equally push up all other wages? Say the minimum wage is £10/hour. you are on £10/hour and your supervisor is on £12/hour. The minimum wage goes up to £11/hour. Now you are on £11/hour. But does your supervisor also get a rise? Or to they stay on £12/hour ? If they don't, what's the point of bothering, they might well think.
We gave a flat rate increase this year.
I understand the reason behind % increases however the impact of the COLC has been much worse on people at the lower end of the pay scale. They have less discretionary/disposable income and it just seemed fairer for everybody to get the same amount. Everybody that I've spoken to were quite happy with it. Important to remember that a lot of managers and Directors also get a bonus payment which the junior staff don't.
I understand the reason behind % increases however the impact of the COLC has been much worse on people at the lower end of the pay scale. They have less discretionary/disposable income and it just seemed fairer for everybody to get the same amount. Everybody that I've spoken to were quite happy with it. Important to remember that a lot of managers and Directors also get a bonus payment which the junior staff don't.
snuffy said:
soupdragon1 said:
I see the points and logic here, although I think you are failing to see mine.
I don't 'clearly think its (b)' however as I didn't say that. I was giving an example that giving a CEO 10% because of the cost of living is an absurd thought process.
And A and B salaries won't converge if they get the same ££ every year. The gap would remain at £25k. However that's not healthy either, in the longer term.
The point I'm illustrating is that the further up the payscale you go, the less impact inflationary pressures have as a % of your overall pay.
Someone on £20k is going to feel a £2k hit on their bills a lot more than someone on £1m.
As you've alluded to, renumeration should be linked to the skill/service they are providing. Thats the key point we agree on. What inflation is at the moment is a secondary consideration, rather than the primary consideration. Thats my point. If you believe in skill based renumeration (like I do) then surely you can see that someone on £1m per year shouldn't get £100k payrise simply because of inflation?
Have they added more YOY value to the company and/or have they driven increased company performance to merit another £100k? Maybe they do deserve it then. But you can't on the one hand support skill based renumeration and then say renumeration should be based on inflation.
Those at the lower levels need help and I think most can see that, but for those higher up the payscale, jumping on the bandwagon to get the same % isn't based on a firm logic. I feel like I've made these points already, but surely people can recognise that they make more sense than just doing a blanket % for all.
Once you get to CEO salaries (£1m, £10m or whatever), all the ideas of linear worth go out of the window really. So the relationship between salary and worth breaks down. When you are at normal salary levels (95% of people earn less than around £80k for example), then inflation does affect all those people to a greater or less extent, but I do take your point that our person A (25k) is more affected than our person B (50k) (as opposed to a CEO on £10m, who's not affected at all).I don't 'clearly think its (b)' however as I didn't say that. I was giving an example that giving a CEO 10% because of the cost of living is an absurd thought process.
And A and B salaries won't converge if they get the same ££ every year. The gap would remain at £25k. However that's not healthy either, in the longer term.
The point I'm illustrating is that the further up the payscale you go, the less impact inflationary pressures have as a % of your overall pay.
Someone on £20k is going to feel a £2k hit on their bills a lot more than someone on £1m.
As you've alluded to, renumeration should be linked to the skill/service they are providing. Thats the key point we agree on. What inflation is at the moment is a secondary consideration, rather than the primary consideration. Thats my point. If you believe in skill based renumeration (like I do) then surely you can see that someone on £1m per year shouldn't get £100k payrise simply because of inflation?
Have they added more YOY value to the company and/or have they driven increased company performance to merit another £100k? Maybe they do deserve it then. But you can't on the one hand support skill based renumeration and then say renumeration should be based on inflation.
Those at the lower levels need help and I think most can see that, but for those higher up the payscale, jumping on the bandwagon to get the same % isn't based on a firm logic. I feel like I've made these points already, but surely people can recognise that they make more sense than just doing a blanket % for all.
Also, yes, if person A and B got continual flat rate increases, they gap would always be 25k. So whilst they would never actually converge, you would get to the point where the percentage difference was not that great, so person B would question why they bother.
It's rather like when the minimum wage increases. Does that equally push up all other wages? Say the minimum wage is £10/hour. you are on £10/hour and your supervisor is on £12/hour. The minimum wage goes up to £11/hour. Now you are on £11/hour. But does your supervisor also get a rise? Or to they stay on £12/hour ? If they don't, what's the point of bothering, they might well think.
IMO, banding is a possible solution and many organisations use it. Like you say, flat £ increases isn't healthy either (as I mentioned above) as over time, the gap becomes less meaningful.
Banding has its flaws too, especially those at the edges of bands so no easy solution.
It gets very complex too,.once you are in highly skilled roles. Sometimes bandings/geographical influences/skill shortages can throw everything out the window.
We had a promised inflation rate pay rise promised last year, it was promised because of all the extra work and change in our jobs roles the company agreed with the unions.
Obviously as the time came the company said the will give a 6% raise and 2k one off or an inflation rise and the threat of job cuts.
The unions put the vote out and the members agreed the 6% and 2k for Xmas deal. Pisses me right off how people can’t see how the 2k is just a bribe, i spoke to loads of people who were chuffed with the 2k!
Obviously as the time came the company said the will give a 6% raise and 2k one off or an inflation rise and the threat of job cuts.
The unions put the vote out and the members agreed the 6% and 2k for Xmas deal. Pisses me right off how people can’t see how the 2k is just a bribe, i spoke to loads of people who were chuffed with the 2k!
Gooose said:
We had a promised inflation rate pay rise promised last year, it was promised because of all the extra work and change in our jobs roles the company agreed with the unions.
Obviously as the time came the company said the will give a 6% raise and 2k one off or an inflation rise and the threat of job cuts.
The unions put the vote out and the members agreed the 6% and 2k for Xmas deal. Pisses me right off how people can’t see how the 2k is just a bribe, i spoke to loads of people who were chuffed with the 2k!
Most People don't understand the arithmetic of compounding increases... And what is lost.Obviously as the time came the company said the will give a 6% raise and 2k one off or an inflation rise and the threat of job cuts.
The unions put the vote out and the members agreed the 6% and 2k for Xmas deal. Pisses me right off how people can’t see how the 2k is just a bribe, i spoke to loads of people who were chuffed with the 2k!
We gave our staff the equivalent of about 10% but allocated it in three different ways to protect the business and reward people according to company performance and what we could afford.
Firstly we announced a £1,000 payment in October to all staff with immediate effect to help with the cost of living crisis. We have around 350 staff so not an inconsiderable hit to the Bottom Line by doing this. £1k might not sound a huge amount but as a one-off payment for the staff on Lower salaries it was a real help.
A month later we announced the pay review at 6% across the board again with immediate effect.
And then in December once we had finalised the Year end accounts and confirmed the profit levels we announced a 3% one-off bonus to all staff paid with their Christmas salaries.
So only the 6% salary increase is contractual and locked in but feedback from staff is they are grateful for all of the increase and bonuses.
I think it also got across the message that we will not be shy to give financial rewards if the business is doing well and can afford it.
Firstly we announced a £1,000 payment in October to all staff with immediate effect to help with the cost of living crisis. We have around 350 staff so not an inconsiderable hit to the Bottom Line by doing this. £1k might not sound a huge amount but as a one-off payment for the staff on Lower salaries it was a real help.
A month later we announced the pay review at 6% across the board again with immediate effect.
And then in December once we had finalised the Year end accounts and confirmed the profit levels we announced a 3% one-off bonus to all staff paid with their Christmas salaries.
So only the 6% salary increase is contractual and locked in but feedback from staff is they are grateful for all of the increase and bonuses.
I think it also got across the message that we will not be shy to give financial rewards if the business is doing well and can afford it.
Edited by A993LAD on Wednesday 28th December 09:40
Gooose said:
We had a promised inflation rate pay rise promised last year, it was promised because of all the extra work and change in our jobs roles the company agreed with the unions.
Obviously as the time came the company said the will give a 6% raise and 2k one off or an inflation rise and the threat of job cuts.
The unions put the vote out and the members agreed the 6% and 2k for Xmas deal. Pisses me right off how people can’t see how the 2k is just a bribe, i spoke to loads of people who were chuffed with the 2k!
Depends if the 2k is part of the pay rise or not. Ours was, so basically my salary is now 2k higher, if yours is just a single lump sum payout then agree you’ve got a raw deal.Obviously as the time came the company said the will give a 6% raise and 2k one off or an inflation rise and the threat of job cuts.
The unions put the vote out and the members agreed the 6% and 2k for Xmas deal. Pisses me right off how people can’t see how the 2k is just a bribe, i spoke to loads of people who were chuffed with the 2k!
MDMA . said:
I get a flat 3% year on year. The big difference will be what Decembers bonus will be. Better be bigger than last year. We’ve had a record year 
Will find out in 2 weeks.
Similar - we got an unexpected one off bonus (all staff) in Dec which was 6% of annual salary. Will find out in 2 weeks. Bonus is expected to be high due to the industry I'm in.
Real test is what happens in the April pay round - my belief is that the Dec payment will allow them to soften the permanent increase.
Waiting to find out now.... which makes tax planning somewhat more difficult.
We’ve had, and look to be getting, nothing.
Work for a second tier services company, worked here for the past 2 years having joined as a placement student, now half way through 4th year at uni.
Interesting to see it from my perspective as a uni student I guess, but I work in operations so hours are often long. Our offshore techs have had 2 x pay rises since I joined, whereas personally and company wide there have been none.
Really showing as a host of staff are leaving for competitors...
I’m only staying because I’ve been able to get such quick progression, through people leaving, with no real qualification as yet... at my age I think it’s important to consider industry exposure over wages, until I’m actually worth some decent coin.
Work for a second tier services company, worked here for the past 2 years having joined as a placement student, now half way through 4th year at uni.
Interesting to see it from my perspective as a uni student I guess, but I work in operations so hours are often long. Our offshore techs have had 2 x pay rises since I joined, whereas personally and company wide there have been none.
Really showing as a host of staff are leaving for competitors...
I’m only staying because I’ve been able to get such quick progression, through people leaving, with no real qualification as yet... at my age I think it’s important to consider industry exposure over wages, until I’m actually worth some decent coin.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff