LooseSuits

He's hired to an entry-level position and then 6 months later he's managing 60 people, with a salary that's not much better than what he started with? No, this is not a normal business practice.

The bigger question is why is he still there? If John's rapid escalation into management was credible (from the standpoint of his abilities) then he could take that anywhere and be better off.

Company loyalty credibility? In IT? What about his own credibility when he tells someone else he manages 60 people making a minimum wage plus 7.5% for cost of living?

That's ridiculous.

If your responsibilities increase, you deserve a raise. I'd make an exception if it was a focus shift in your job instead of an up the ladder move and it was your request.

He's just being taken advantage of, badly.

He is being used. If you're going to expect more work out of me you need to pay me for it!

If it were me, I'd point blank say either give me a raise now, or when it DOES come, it better be a retroactive raise and give me a couple hundred/thousand extra in that check.

Otherwise he's being totally taken advantage of and the company is milking him for all he's worth. Either take your talents elsewhere where they appreciate you, or talk to the company. Because "john" is going to burnout from overwork and underpay.

I agree with the other responses - this is NOT normal. Usually a promotion, especially one as large as the one described is accompanied with an immediate pay increase. In the situation described I may not have complained too much during the first promotion, but the second one should have been a sign he was in the wrong place. With work experience like that on his resume, he should be able to find a better-paying job anywhere.

It probably wasn't immediately considered by the company to be actual "promotion" in the true sense of the word. They were probably using the time between job duties as a more or less "probationary" period. Either that, or it is their company policy to give raises during a certain time of the year, due to budgetary reasons, their particular fiscal year, etc. I am not discussing this and leaning towards the company, because I don't agree with the situation at all, but unfortunately, that is often the procedure.

Some companies do this, and this isn't the first instance I have heard of it. Many companies are now opting to promote from within, with the stipulation being made to the employee that their raise won't come immediately, but down the road. It is then the employee's choice to accept or not accept the offer. Some people prefer the position title, and will forfeit the raise until the "yearly" time period. If the employee rejects the "promotion", they can always hire from the outside. And, most companies who do hire outside, hire at a lower starting salary than what the previous person made when they left, thus saving them (the company) money. It is a common practice in the business world, unfortunately. I have seen this happen with family and friends, who work in all facets of business, and varied companies. Major business publications have been writing about the same set of circumstances for years, now.

I am not saying I agree with that, but that is often the case in the working world, especially in some locations where the workforce is experiencing a decline, with companies folding up or losing markets for their products.

Unfortunately, it is not that easy, in today's job market, for one to just pick up and leave, especially if they have a family, a mortgage, car payments and other financial responsibilities that don't allow them even a week or two off, without pay, to search for another job. And, who is to say they will find employment right away.

I agree with Lorrim

Thanks for the replies, everyone. It's interesting to see the opposing viewpoints.

@fuscom, it's quite a bit better than minimum plus 7.5%, but I see your point about credibility.

Interestingly enough, there have been a couple of instances of other people telling the company "forget it. I'll pass on the promotion" when it didn't come with an immediate raise. One wonders how that will affect their promotability later on with the company, but I'd assume that maybe they (the employees) wouldn't really care, since they can already see the hand writing on the wall.

@Ozone42, it was definitely a move up the ladder in both promotion instances, with a change in job title, not just a change in duties.

@peroty, my feelings exactly, and I think he's seeing that burnout at this point.

@thebeancounter, I thought the same thing. I could see maybe letting the first one slide, but the second? NOT.

@LorriM, I see what you're saying, and it's good to hear that this is not an isolated incident, in a twisted sort of way. I would say it's a budgetary concern with waiting for the yearly raise cycle (maybe), BUT, when the yearly raise cycle comes around, there ought to be more green coming than just the normal "you're a great worker bee" amount of raise. I realize that when a company hires from outside, that they are going to hire at a lower salary than what the last guy had, because presumably the last guy received salary raises while in the job. But there's got to be a salary range for the particular job, and when they promote from within, then the employee should receive a raise that puts him in that range, not just the "great worker" yearly thing that he'd get anyway.

You're absolutely right, it's not that easy to pick up and move for most folks for many reason, but the good part is that John is not in a business that's losing marketability. The bigger problem is, John himself needs convincing that he's getting a raw deal (probably) and that this situation isn't (or shouldn't be) normal, and that he could do better elsewhere.

Like LorriM, I've heard of this situation (unfortunately happening to friends or whatnot) before multiple times. And it always comes to the bottom dollar on the behalf of the company. Unfortunately, they count on the employee not putting their foot down so they can skate by. And it's always left to the employee looking like the "bad guy" if they choose to make that ultimatum. Basically, they gotta put their balls to the wall and force themselves to evaluate how much they're worth.

Heh, great phrasing, estarla. "Balls to the wall," that's it exactly, and some employees do, but some won't, even could they be convinced that they should.

dreamweaver: It is really unfortunate for those who feel trapped in this cycle of promotion/no raise/not enough of a raise situation. And, often the employee is reluctant to stand up for himself/herself because they don't have enough confidence in themselves. It is frustrating all the way around for them.

Yes, I agree that when the yearly cycle comes around the employee should get more than the general raise. It certainly isn't right. Management and Human Resources have the ability to take care of that, in most corporations. They like to act as if they don't, or that the budget hasn't been allocated for the raise.

Yes, estarla, great phrasing.