Job postings and salary ranges - internal HR Question

[Neilk]

Hi,

Onewhipped's post on Follow the money has me thinking about my current job situation and how I feel I am being underpaid.

Corporate has additional job openings in my department to fill some positions in which we are short staffed. The listing doesn't specify a salary range. I went to the local HR person, who is worthless, and asked details about the salary range for my position and she doesn't have it.

My question is, should I be able to get salary ranges for my position to see where I stand, or am I SOL? Does somebody want to bluff their way into getting it for me if I can't?

Thanks,
Neil

[onewhippedpuppy]

That information is available for my company, but you have to be senior management or HR to access it. Salary.com seems to give a decent ballpark range and is adjusted for your area.

[legion]

Part of each employee's annual review at my company is going over salary ranges and where you stand. I always thought this was SOP in business, but maybe I'm just lucky.

As for salary ranges for new positions, my company publishes a "code" on each job for its salary range. These codes themselves will usually tell you if a move is lateral, down, or up if it is within the same kind of work. If you are jumping from one kind of work to a different kind, they may not tell you much. (For example, my pay code is RE3. I know that an RE4 pays more and an RE2 pays less, but if I see a posting for an RA4, I have no idea if this is more or less as it is a different scale.)

Practically speaking, I can get salary ranges from many sources:

-My manager (which I'd have to talk to about the move eventually anyway).
-My HR rep.
-A friend in management. (Great for informal inquiries to see if a job is even worth it.)
-A friend in HR. (A term I use loosely, as I believe these people are incapable of normal human relationships.)
-A coworker/friend that has recently asked these questions.

[dd74]

I'd hate to say you're SOL. But I will say that being underpaid/overworked seems like the corporate wave of the future.

[Rick Lee]

I think most performance reviews are pre-determined based on whether the company wants/can afford/needs to give you a raise to keep you. I have worked at two places where every single person got the same grade, except in one case because the boss knew a woman needed a raise to keep her from leaving. At another job the big boss told all his directors to fire anyone who did not get an "excellent". Well, none of the bosses wanted to deal with firing people who were not necessarily excellent and then have to hire and train new folks. So EVERYONE got an "excellent." What are those odds?

[rattlsnak]

depends on the company. most bigger 'corporate' companies have all this stated in job grades and pay scales within those job grades. they have to by law.
i.e.
Engineer level 2 = Job grades 8, 9 and 10.
Pay ranges, 8 - 32-42, 9- 35-45, 10 - 38-48, etc... so yes, a level 8 could potentially make more than a level 10 in certain circumstances. This is where the longer youve been somewhere the more potential you have of getting "screwed".

example... you've been at the company for 10 years. you were hired in at enginnering level 1, grade level 6. over the years you have progressed to engineer level two, grade level 9. it is VERY releastic for the company to hire in a new employee (based on exp) at engineer level 2, grade 9 or 10 with a higher pay than you right out of the gate. Or worse, a level 8 with higher pay.. happens every day, trust me..

[Superman]

This is an area in which I have had an interest for more than twenty years, and in which I have done substantial research and consulting. In my always-humble opinion, companies that make compensation decisions willy-nilly, and companies who attempt to conceal compensation analysis and salary range work product are asking for trouble.

Every large company worth it's salt conducts compensation analysis research, and should share some of that information with staff. First, it is widely understood that a conscious decision to pay staff at the lower end of the range of salaries for comparable positions elsewhere results in that company attracting and retaining the poorest of talent within the available labor pool.

But even more devastating is workers' perceptions of pay inequity, and particularly where perceptions are formed through guesswork because the company prefers to conceal that information. We all know that one of the most effective ways of torpedoing productivity is to permit workers to develop the perception they are being cheated. Workers will adjust their productivity/loyalty levels to match their perceptions of equity or pay fairness. From my perspective, there are few things that more effectively cause poor corporate performance than screwing up this compensation analysis strategy thing. In fact, it is my opinion that there is no better way to screw up a company's performance than this. This is the number one way, IMHO.

[juan ruiz]

If you go to Monsterjobs.com and do a search on your field you should be able to find some jobs that have the salaries posted.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by Superman

Workers will adjust their productivity/loyalty levels to match their perceptions of equity or pay fairness.

The ex highest paid employee - kept wanting more and more. The more he thought he was owed - the less he worked - Until he ended up out of a job. I very much agree with a key point of yours.

It IS important for a company to take care of its employees, it is also important for employees to take care of their company. If they aren't happy with each other - productivity decreases dramatically. And so I'll also give the other side of what you posted in bold. Employers will adjust their Pay/Loyalty levels based on their perceptions of equity or productive fairness from their employees. However, I must say in larger companies, especially ones with public stock - their perceptions of equity gets warped. Management that only looks at increasing their bonus for that month TICK ME OFF.

But anyway, I guess I don't have much more productive to say.

[LWJ]

Bottom line: you need to be able for your employer to turn a positive margin on YOUR cost.

Consider this. In 2000, I sold $30,000,000 with an average margin of 15%. My salary was peanuts as a percentage. My employer then hired a guy to do exactly what I did at 3% of sales commission. His sales of course were micro compared to mine but his income was superior.

Excellent example. I learned. I left. I am now on commission and fairly compensated.

I truely believe that if you are a strong performer, you need to get your income on a % of the pie basis. This is the only way to be fair to your self. It is fair to the employer as well. Of course, the rest of the world doesn't agree with me.

Good luck.
Larry