My employees make more than me

[iamwiz82]

Still electric side, so don't blame me for whatever those gas people do!

Get me one of those bridges! I want real time data.

 

[rcpratt]

Get me one of those bridges! I want real time data.

I have a bridge and it won't work, meter is too far away. I can't even get them to resolve my issue :\

They want the bridge back...I'll ask them if I can just give it directly to another customer.

 

[zCypher]

Where I work, a developmental opportunity is pretty much like you said, delay paying for a year. They can last from 6 months to more than a year depending on how bad they want to milk it or if they just don't like you that much but didn't find a better replacement yet, etc.

Personally, in those "acting" roles, I would avoid putting too much pressure on about compensation, since you technically don't have that actual title, sort of like still being on probation. I was in a similar spot for about 8 months before I got permanence in that role, then I got the pay increase. I know some people stuck in limbo over a year though, which really sucks.

I think you're probably better off just kicking ass, and if there's a point to bring up, it should be about becoming permanent in that role more than about how much more money you're making. Raise the compensation discussion after you've secured your role there. IMO less risk of things going sideways that way.

 

[vi edit]

I just find this concept of "test driving an employee for free for a year" fascinating. Are there people that seriously work for a year without getting paid "to prove their worth" to a company?

Half the management positions I've known are revolving doors anyway. People are in and out of them in 2-3 years, if not sooner. Seems like a win for a company to just speed up that turnover a bit more and just not pay somebody to sit in that seat. Talk about padding the bottom line.

I don't think I've ever heard of this practice before this thread.

 

[Rage187]

It's not that you aren't compensated, it's that you aren't getting the exact pay for that position.

I've done it before for a year. A coveted positioned opened, I had first dibs with the understanding that it wasn't budegeted for the year. I took it, rocked it and when that year was up, got the raise. 1 more year and I got the level II position. Of course, I could have said no. Someone else would take it and I would be two years behind in my career.

 

[Exophase]

Seems weird calling them employees, when the company is really the one employing them, even if you have authority to fire them (assuming you actually do)

Normally there's a correlation between authority, responsibility, and compensation. But ultimately the company won't care about this. They'll pay you as much as is necessary to keep you so long as it's not so much that it outweighs the cost of losing you. If you want to convince them to pay you more you'll need to tell them you refuse to work for what you're making and convince them that they can't get someone else to do it for the same amount (and/or that the additional cost of replacing you is too high), not that bosses are supposed to making more than their subordinates.

 

[phucheneh]

Normally there's a correlation between authority, responsibility, and compensation.

This leaves out technical expertise, experience, ect.

Frankly I think there are plenty of situations where management can and should be payed less than the individuals with the talent to actually perform the work.

Say you have a group of scientists, or engineers, or whatever, doing very high-level work, all having many years of experience and possessing graduate degrees. They are overseen by someone with an undergrad business degree, whose job is to manage people, time, money, ect. Would you really expect that guy to make more just because he's 'in charge'? Seems shitty to me.

 

[drebo]

Where's the rule that says managers have to make more than their subordinates?

I mean, really. Middle management, in particular, is where those who don't have the skills to become a top level engineer go when they don't have really good management skills either.

 

[Fingolfin269]

It's never too late. All about the presentation and then of course the perceived value.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Remember there are people who make, and people who tell people to make.

It is much easier to find the people who tell people to make, VS actual producers.

So there is probably a salary skew in favor of the harder to find skill-set in your workplace.

 

[Bock]

If your employees are pay by performance or have an established record of performing extremely well, upper management will always take care of them first. Especially if it's a specialized skill that's hard to find. This happens all the time in healthcare.

You're just there to babysit & run errands for upper management w/o making them look like the bad guy.

 

[jagec]

Say you have a group of scientists, or engineers, or whatever, doing very high-level work, all having many years of experience and possessing graduate degrees. They are overseen by someone with an undergrad business degree, whose job is to manage people, time, money, ect. Would you really expect that guy to make more just because he's 'in charge'? Seems shitty to me.

They shouldn't, but they usually do. Why? Who knows. I personally believe that you could walk into 90% of all institutions and fire half of the management at random, and you'd see IMPROVED productivity.

 

[MongGrel]

The more I read threads like this one I might be moving on myself from where I am.

Considering what I do and watching fresh engineers out of school fuck things up and not realize it and various other things that screw up things.

I do not get paid enough by a long shot for correcting many things these days, and no one seems to even recognize what a high end tool and diemaker even is in some areas, as they have no training to even qualify to start off in the trade these days.

 

[Exophase]

This leaves out technical expertise, experience, ect.

That's why it's only a correlation. But there is something to be said for getting more money when you're in a position that has more responsibility and accountability.

Frankly I think there are plenty of situations where management can and should be payed less than the individuals with the talent to actually perform the work.

Say you have a group of scientists, or engineers, or whatever, doing very high-level work, all having many years of experience and possessing graduate degrees. They are overseen by someone with an undergrad business degree, whose job is to manage people, time, money, ect. Would you really expect that guy to make more just because he's 'in charge'? Seems shitty to me.

This really depends on the corporate culture, I think. At my workplace the managers almost all started as engineers, and this does often give them more insight into how to properly manage engineering projects. This also means they were separated somehow from the rest of the engineers, meaning it's either a less desirable position (and in a lot of ways management really does suck, at least IMO - I'd never do it) or it has tighter qualifications. You'd expect more pay from that. You also wouldn't expect people to accept a different position that paid less.

But I'm going to assume that the OP is not in that position and therefore more likely fits your description, and yeah, if he was hired just to manage projects then that shouldn't mean he deserves more. And like I said in my last post, it doesn't really to matter to his bosses what he deserves anyway - that is, if they're any good.

Which makes me think, if these direct reports were really his employees then he could just decide to pay them less ;p

 

[rcpratt]

I just find this concept of "test driving an employee for free for a year" fascinating. Are there people that seriously work for a year without getting paid "to prove their worth" to a company?

Half the management positions I've known are revolving doors anyway. People are in and out of them in 2-3 years, if not sooner. Seems like a win for a company to just speed up that turnover a bit more and just not pay somebody to sit in that seat. Talk about padding the bottom line.

I don't think I've ever heard of this practice before this thread.

I dunno, I suspect it's not that all that uncommon among large companies. It allows them to put people where they want to without interviewing for the job, it allows them to try people out for a period, and they don't have to pay them for a year. Yes, there are a lot of people, including apparently me, that do this. Most of them end up getting the job and getting back-paid for the period that they were developmental if they aren't idiots.

I don't technically meet the job requirements, so my options are either do this and get the job and get paid next year, or keep doing my current job and keep getting paid what I'm getting paid. Not really much of a choice.

It's not like I'm under-compensated for an engineer with 5 years experience. They've been relatively good to me with my salary and very good to me with bonuses and other things. But sure, I'm under-compensated for this new job grade, for sure. I might be slightly below the minimum.

 

[rcpratt]

Seems weird calling them employees, when the company is really the one employing them, even if you have authority to fire them (assuming you actually do)

Normally there's a correlation between authority, responsibility, and compensation. But ultimately the company won't care about this. They'll pay you as much as is necessary to keep you so long as it's not so much that it outweighs the cost of losing you. If you want to convince them to pay you more you'll need to tell them you refuse to work for what you're making and convince them that they can't get someone else to do it for the same amount (and/or that the additional cost of replacing you is too high), not that bosses are supposed to making more than their subordinates.

I'm sorry that my phrasing offended you. I'm pretty sure everyone that read the OP understood that I'm not the CEO of this corporation.

This leaves out technical expertise, experience, ect.

Frankly I think there are plenty of situations where management can and should be payed less than the individuals with the talent to actually perform the work.

Say you have a group of scientists, or engineers, or whatever, doing very high-level work, all having many years of experience and possessing graduate degrees. They are overseen by someone with an undergrad business degree, whose job is to manage people, time, money, ect. Would you really expect that guy to make more just because he's 'in charge'? Seems shitty to me.

This is more like your average Joe engineer with a bachelors degree who makes a very comfortable living wage doing exactly what they've been doing for the last 15 years.

This situation came about because the organization I was in basically absorbed this new organization that I'm in because they weren't getting shit done. Two of us were sent over to start improving things.

Where's the rule that says managers have to make more than their subordinates?

I mean, really. Middle management, in particular, is where those who don't have the skills to become a top level engineer go when they don't have really good management skills either.

Sorry. I'm 26. Perhaps I missed the superior ATOT method, but I kind of figured I had to go through middle management in order to get to higher management. I don't know what you do, but nearly every management level person at this company is an engineer and still deals with engineering problems daily.